Filed: Nov. 01, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1725 SHERRI WOOTEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 00-806-S) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 1, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sherri Wooten, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1725 SHERRI WOOTEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 00-806-S) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 1, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sherri Wooten, Appellant Pro Se. L..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1725 SHERRI WOOTEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 00-806-S) Submitted: October 26, 2000 Decided: November 1, 2000 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sherri Wooten, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Jay Gebhardt, GEBHARDT & SMITH, Baltimore, Maryland; Douglas Steven Reinhart, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Sherri Wooten appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendant on her civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Wooten’s motion for summary reversal and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Wooten v. BMW Fin. Servs., No. CA-00-806-S (D. Md. May 26, 2000). 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
