Filed: Feb. 25, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2570 CHARLES HOWARD STRAHLER, JR.; PATRICIA ANN STRAHLER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus JOSEPH M. TOWNSLEY, SR.; STEPHEN F. MESZAROS; PAUL HENDERSON, Esquire; CHRISTOPHER HO VANDYKE LIMITED; MICHAEL E. FELDMAN, Esquire; PROSKAUER, ROSE, GOETZ & MENDELSOHN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-96- 1797-AMD) Submi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2570 CHARLES HOWARD STRAHLER, JR.; PATRICIA ANN STRAHLER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus JOSEPH M. TOWNSLEY, SR.; STEPHEN F. MESZAROS; PAUL HENDERSON, Esquire; CHRISTOPHER HO VANDYKE LIMITED; MICHAEL E. FELDMAN, Esquire; PROSKAUER, ROSE, GOETZ & MENDELSOHN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-96- 1797-AMD) Submit..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2570 CHARLES HOWARD STRAHLER, JR.; PATRICIA ANN STRAHLER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus JOSEPH M. TOWNSLEY, SR.; STEPHEN F. MESZAROS; PAUL HENDERSON, Esquire; CHRISTOPHER HO VANDYKE LIMITED; MICHAEL E. FELDMAN, Esquire; PROSKAUER, ROSE, GOETZ & MENDELSOHN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-96- 1797-AMD) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Howard Strahler, Jr., Patricia Ann Strahler, Appellants Pro Se. Elliot Neil Lewis, Baltimore, Maryland; John F. Blevins, Bel Air, Maryland; John A. Wolf, OBER, KALER, GRIMES & SHRIVER, Balti- more, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district court's order dismissing their civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appel- lants' motion for summary reversal and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Strahler v. Townsley, No. CA-96-1797-AMD (D. Md. Sept. 30, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3