Filed: Jul. 28, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1267 JOHN CARL ROES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-99-230-WMN) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 28, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Carl Roes, Appellant Pro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1267 JOHN CARL ROES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-99-230-WMN) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 28, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Carl Roes, Appellant Pro ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1267 JOHN CARL ROES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-99-230-WMN) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 28, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Carl Roes, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Carl Roes appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action for want of subject matter jurisdiction. We have re- viewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Roes v. Operations Management, Inc., No. CA- 99-230-WMN (D. Md. Feb. 9, 1999). 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
