Filed: Mar. 28, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2531 CURTIS L. WRENN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HARVEY S. WASSERMAN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge; Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-88-1413-B) Submitted: March 12, 1996 Decided: March 28, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2531 CURTIS L. WRENN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HARVEY S. WASSERMAN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge; Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-88-1413-B) Submitted: March 12, 1996 Decided: March 28, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2531 CURTIS L. WRENN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HARVEY S. WASSERMAN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge; Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-88-1413-B) Submitted: March 12, 1996 Decided: March 28, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis L. Wrenn, Appellant Pro Se. Harvey Saul Wasserman, COHEN, GREENE & WASSERMAN, Edgewater, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order, following trial, entering judgment for Defendant upon the finding that Appel- lant had not established either legal malpractice or defamation. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wrenn v. Wasserman, No. CA-88-1413-B (D. Md. July 14, 1995). 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
