Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Willard v. Kunda, 11-1120 (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 11-1120 Visitors: 26
Filed: May 31, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1120 DOUGLAS E. WILLARD; DEBRA WILLARD, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and WHITETAIL HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. KAREN KUNDA; ADAM KUNDA; HACK'S POINT GENERAL STORE, INCORPORATED; CECIL BANCORP, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Cecil Bank; CHARLES F. SPOSATO, SR.; MARY B. HALSEY; SANDRA D. FELTMAN; ANTHONY MOSS; BRIAN LOCKHART; CECIL BANK, Defendants - Appellees, and WAYNE HOLMQUIST; NANCY HOLMQUIST, Defendants. Appeal from the United States
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1120 DOUGLAS E. WILLARD; DEBRA WILLARD, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and WHITETAIL HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. KAREN KUNDA; ADAM KUNDA; HACK'S POINT GENERAL STORE, INCORPORATED; CECIL BANCORP, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Cecil Bank; CHARLES F. SPOSATO, SR.; MARY B. HALSEY; SANDRA D. FELTMAN; ANTHONY MOSS; BRIAN LOCKHART; CECIL BANK, Defendants - Appellees, and WAYNE HOLMQUIST; NANCY HOLMQUIST, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:10-cv-00326-JFM) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas E. Willard and Debra Willard, Appellants Pro Se. David Matthew Wyand, ROSENBERG, MARTIN & GREENBERG, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Douglas E. Willard and Debra Willard appeal the district court’s orders dismissing their civil action and denying their motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Willard v. Kunda, No. 1:10-cv-00326-JFM (D. Md. Nov. 11, 2010 & Jan. 14, 2011). 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