Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Dickson v. Cohn, Goldberg & Deutsch, 10-1193 (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 10-1193 Visitors: 46
Filed: May 04, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1193 EULA DICKSON; ANDREA DICKSON, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. COHN, GOLDBERG & DEUTSCH LAW FIRM; DARLENE BUZZARD, in her individual capacity; PATRICIA KRIEGER, in her individual capacity; STEPHEN NORMAN GOLDBERG, in his individual capacity; RICHARD EVAN SOLOMON, in his individual capacity; RONALD STEVEN DEUTSCH, in his individual capacity; EDWARD S. COHN, in his individual capacity; RICHARD J. ROGERS, in his individual cap
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1193 EULA DICKSON; ANDREA DICKSON, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. COHN, GOLDBERG & DEUTSCH LAW FIRM; DARLENE BUZZARD, in her individual capacity; PATRICIA KRIEGER, in her individual capacity; STEPHEN NORMAN GOLDBERG, in his individual capacity; RICHARD EVAN SOLOMON, in his individual capacity; RONALD STEVEN DEUTSCH, in his individual capacity; EDWARD S. COHN, in his individual capacity; RICHARD J. ROGERS, in his individual capacity, Defendants – Appellees, and MERS, INCORPORATED; RECONSTRUCT COMPANY, N.A., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:09-cv-00937-PJM) Submitted: April 14, 2011 Decided: May 4, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eula Dickson, Andrea Dickson, Appellants Pro Se. Stephen Norman Goldberg, Richard Evan Solomon, COHN, GOLDBERG & DEUTSCH, LLC, Towson, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district court’s order dismissing their complaint alleging numerous causes of action arising from a state foreclosure proceeding. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dickson v. Cohn, No. 8:09-cv-00937-PJM (D. Md. Dec. 7, 2009); see also 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (stating that this court’s review is limited to the issues raised in the informal brief). We deny Appellants’ motions to strike and for sanctions. 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