Filed: Jun. 18, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2436 HEARTLAND INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STEVE M. SMITH, Defendant - Appellant, and TOWN AND COUNTRY STORAGE BUILDING, INCORPO- RATED; TIM SULLIVAN, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-97-979-A) Submitted: May 28, 1999 Decided: June 18, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judg
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2436 HEARTLAND INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STEVE M. SMITH, Defendant - Appellant, and TOWN AND COUNTRY STORAGE BUILDING, INCORPO- RATED; TIM SULLIVAN, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-97-979-A) Submitted: May 28, 1999 Decided: June 18, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judge..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2436 HEARTLAND INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STEVE M. SMITH, Defendant - Appellant, and TOWN AND COUNTRY STORAGE BUILDING, INCORPO- RATED; TIM SULLIVAN, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-97-979-A) Submitted: May 28, 1999 Decided: June 18, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steve M. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. John Edward Gagliano, COHEN, GETTINGS & DUNHAM, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Steve M. Smith appeals the district court’s order entering judgment in favor of Heartland Industries, Incorporated. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Heartland Indust. v. Smith, No. CA-97-979-A (E.D. Va. July 21, & Sept. 15, 1998). We dispense with oral argu- ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre- sented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2