Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Marie M. McMahon Attorney-In-Fact v. Donald Kent, Donald L. Bowman, and John H. Johnston, 91-2046 (1991)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-2046 Visitors: 13
Filed: May 31, 1991
Latest Update: Mar. 25, 2017
Summary: 935 F.2d 267 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Marie M. McMAHON, Attorney-in-Fact, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald KENT, Donald L. Bowman, Defendant-Appellees, and John H. Johnston, Defendant. No. 91-2046. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
More

935 F.2d 267
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Marie M. McMAHON, Attorney-in-Fact, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Donald KENT, Donald L. Bowman, Defendant-Appellees,
and
John H. Johnston, Defendant.

No. 91-2046.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 6, 1991.
Decided May 31, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-89-173-A)

Marie M. McMahon, appellant pro se.

Kevin Lee Locklin, Slenker, Brandt, Jennings & Johnston, Merrifield, Va., for appellees.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before DONALD RUSSELL, WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Marie M. McMahon appeals from the district court's order denying her motion for default judgment. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. McMahon v. Kent, CA-89-173-A (E.D.Va. Feb. 4, 1991). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

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