Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Guo v. Ryland Group, 97-1617 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-1617 Visitors: 76
Filed: Aug. 25, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1617 YIQUN GUO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE RYLAND GROUP, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee, and ARLENE MALECH; DOUGLAS TOWNSEND, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-1319-JFM) Submitted: August 5, 1997 Decided: August 25, 1997 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1617 YIQUN GUO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE RYLAND GROUP, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee, and ARLENE MALECH; DOUGLAS TOWNSEND, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-1319-JFM) Submitted: August 5, 1997 Decided: August 25, 1997 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yiqun Guo, Appellant Pro Se. Richard J. Hafets, Eric Paltell, PIPER & MARBURY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant, Yiqun Guo, appeals the district court's orders awarding costs to the Defendant Ryland Group and denying Guo's mo- tion for reconsideration of the order. 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. Guo v. Ryland Group, Inc., No. CA-95-1319-JFM (D. Md. Apr. 2, 1997; April 15, 1997). We find that the district court properly denied Guo’s motion for reconsideration because the clerk's order awarding costs to Ryland Group was not barred by res judicata. Res judicata is inapplicable to the bill of costs award because the prior denial of attorneys' fees decided a separate issue and did not implicate the bill of costs. We deny Ryland's motion to dismiss the appeal. 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