Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Strahler v. Comptroller Treasury, 94-1983 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-1983 Visitors: 42
Filed: Mar. 26, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 94-1983 CHARLES HOWARD STRAHLER, JR.; PATRICIA ANN STRAHLER; RUTH V. STRAHLER, Officer, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and WIRTH-STRAHLER & SON, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, versus COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, Sales and Use Tax Division; THOMAS J. MACE; ASSISTANT STATE COMPTROLLER; DEBORAH B. BACHARACH; ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, Sales and Use Tax Division, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Di
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 94-1983 CHARLES HOWARD STRAHLER, JR.; PATRICIA ANN STRAHLER; RUTH V. STRAHLER, Officer, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and WIRTH-STRAHLER & SON, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, versus COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, Sales and Use Tax Division; THOMAS J. MACE; ASSISTANT STATE COMPTROLLER; DEBORAH B. BACHARACH; ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, Sales and Use Tax Division, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-94- 864-L) Submitted: February 13, 1996 Decided: March 26, 1996 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Howard Strahler, Jr., Patricia Ann Strahler, Ruth V. Strahler, Appellants Pro Se. Sheldon Howard Laskin, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district court's orders dismissing their notice of removal, and denying their Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's orders, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Appellants' notice of removal, and its denial of Appellants' motion for reconsideration. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
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