Filed: Oct. 08, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1679 CHARLES EDWARD LEE ROGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WALTER M. ROGERS, JR.; RONALD A. ROGERS; ROGERS BROTHERS, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-121-A) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affir
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1679 CHARLES EDWARD LEE ROGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WALTER M. ROGERS, JR.; RONALD A. ROGERS; ROGERS BROTHERS, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-121-A) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirm..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1679 CHARLES EDWARD LEE ROGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WALTER M. ROGERS, JR.; RONALD A. ROGERS; ROGERS BROTHERS, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-121-A) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Edward Lee Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. H. Jan Roltsch-Anoll, COMPTON & DULING, Woodbridge, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, his motion for declaratory judgment. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the rea- soning of the district court. Rogers v. Rogers, No. CA-97-121-A (E.D. Va. Apr. 18, 1997). The Appellees' motion for sanctions is hereby denied. 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