Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Fielitz v. Fielitz, 99-1704 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-1704 Visitors: 4
Filed: Aug. 10, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1704 MARY S. FIELITZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GLENN R. FIELITZ; JAY ANN JEMAIL; JEANNE M. HANSON; ALAN N. COOPER; SAMUEL ROMIROWSKY; PEGGY L. ABLEMAN; BARBARA D. CROWELL; FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-98-586-1) Submitted: August 5, 1999 D
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1704 MARY S. FIELITZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GLENN R. FIELITZ; JAY ANN JEMAIL; JEANNE M. HANSON; ALAN N. COOPER; SAMUEL ROMIROWSKY; PEGGY L. ABLEMAN; BARBARA D. CROWELL; FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-98-586-1) Submitted: August 5, 1999 Decided: August 10, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary S. Fielitz, Appellant Pro Se. Joslin Davis, DAVIS & HARWELL, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Anthony J. Biller, Karon Bowling Thornton, MAUPIN, TAYLOR & ELLIS, P.A., Raleigh, North Carolina; Stephen McDaniel Russell, BELL, DAVIS & PITT, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Daniel Watson Fouts, ADAMS, KLEEMEIER, HAGAN, HAMMAH & FOUTS, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mary Fielitz appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action. 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. See Fielitz v. Fielitz, No. CA-98-586-1 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 15, 1999). We further deny Appellant’s motion to relieve Appellee Glenn Fielitz’s attorney. 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