Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Fernandez v. Waterworks, 05-2278 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-2278 Visitors: 54
Filed: Mar. 27, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2278 MARIA FERNANDEZ, mother and personal representative of the Estate of Ramon Fernandez, Plaintiff - Appellant, and ROSE KRISTOSSERSON, Plaintiff, versus WATERWORKS AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY COMPANY, a West Virginia corporation; BOBBY S. OVERBEY, an individual, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2278 MARIA FERNANDEZ, mother and personal representative of the Estate of Ramon Fernandez, Plaintiff - Appellant, and ROSE KRISTOSSERSON, Plaintiff, versus WATERWORKS AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY COMPANY, a West Virginia corporation; BOBBY S. OVERBEY, an individual, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-03-2423-3) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 27, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maria Fernandez, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Hylton Sanders, HUDDLESTON, BOLEN, BEATTY, PORTER & COPEN, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Maria Fernandez appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to the defendants in her civil action in which she sought damages stemming from a car accident and denying her subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm both orders on the reasoning of the district court. See Fernandez v. Waterworks and Indus. Supply Co., No. CA-03-2423-3 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 27, 2005 & Oct. 19, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 3 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer