Filed: May 28, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1088 STEFANIE A. RODEN; JAMES D. HABURN, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. BHULA DIAH; LINDA KNIGHT; STUART COHEN; JAYANT PATEL; PRAKRUTI HOSPITALITY, LLC; TERRY NEILL GRIMES, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:07-cv-00252-gec-mfu) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 28, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circ
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1088 STEFANIE A. RODEN; JAMES D. HABURN, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. BHULA DIAH; LINDA KNIGHT; STUART COHEN; JAYANT PATEL; PRAKRUTI HOSPITALITY, LLC; TERRY NEILL GRIMES, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:07-cv-00252-gec-mfu) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 28, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1088 STEFANIE A. RODEN; JAMES D. HABURN, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. BHULA DIAH; LINDA KNIGHT; STUART COHEN; JAYANT PATEL; PRAKRUTI HOSPITALITY, LLC; TERRY NEILL GRIMES, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:07-cv-00252-gec-mfu) Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: May 28, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stefanie A. Roden; James D. Haburn, Appellants Pro Se. Terry Neill Grimes, Melvin Edward Williams, GRIMES & WILLIAMS, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Stefanie A. Roden and James D. Haburn appeal the district court’s order dismissing their numerous federal and state law claims against Defendants. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Roden v. Diah, No. 7:07-cv-00252- gec-mfu (W.D. Va. Dec. 19, 2008). 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 2
