Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Goodman v. Jones Blechman Woltz, 98-1763 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-1763 Visitors: 12
Filed: Oct. 22, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1763 WALTER GOODMAN, sole surviving shareholder of Newport Centre Investment Corporation, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JONES, BLECHMAN, WOLTZ & KELLY, PC, A Professional Legal Corporation; EDWARD DWIGHT DAVID, Esq., Counsel to Plaintiff; KEVIN W. GRIERSON, Esq., Attorney with Jones, Blechman, Woltz and Kelly; JAMES F. THORNTON, III, Esq., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1763 WALTER GOODMAN, sole surviving shareholder of Newport Centre Investment Corporation, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JONES, BLECHMAN, WOLTZ & KELLY, PC, A Professional Legal Corporation; EDWARD DWIGHT DAVID, Esq., Counsel to Plaintiff; KEVIN W. GRIERSON, Esq., Attorney with Jones, Blechman, Woltz and Kelly; JAMES F. THORNTON, III, Esq., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-97-31-4) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 22, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter Goodman, Appellant Pro Se. John Y. Pearson, Jr., Frank Alwin Edgar, Jr., WILLCOX & SAVAGE, Norfolk, Virginia; Steven Scott Biss, MALONEY, HUENNEKENS, PARKS, GECKER & PARSONS, Richmond, Virginia; Lloyd Lee Byrd, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Rich- mond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order granting Ap- pellees’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 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. Goodman v. Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly, P.C., No. CA-97-31-4 (E.D. Va. Apr. 13, 1998). 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
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