Filed: Jan. 08, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1984 WILLIAM M. NOBLES, d/b/a Stebrita Music, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARLIN AMERICA, INCORPORATED; TRIO MUSIC COM- PANY, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees, and LIEBER & STOLLER, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-99-98-4-H) Submitted: December 20, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001 Before WIDENER an
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1984 WILLIAM M. NOBLES, d/b/a Stebrita Music, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARLIN AMERICA, INCORPORATED; TRIO MUSIC COM- PANY, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees, and LIEBER & STOLLER, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-99-98-4-H) Submitted: December 20, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001 Before WIDENER and..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1984 WILLIAM M. NOBLES, d/b/a Stebrita Music, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARLIN AMERICA, INCORPORATED; TRIO MUSIC COM- PANY, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees, and LIEBER & STOLLER, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-99-98-4-H) Submitted: December 20, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. White, Greenville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert C. Osterberg, ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB, New York, New York, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William M. Nobles appeals the district court’s order applying the doctrine of laches to his claim and entering summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. According- ly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Nobles v. Carlin America, Inc., No. CA-99-98-4-H (E.D.N.C. June 20, 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