Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

R&M Environmental v. Britain, 00-2011 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2011 Visitors: 28
Filed: Jan. 08, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2011 MARTHA SCARBORO RHEM, personal representative and administrator of the estate of John Rhem, Jr., deceased, Appellant, R&M ENVIRONMENTAL, INCORPORATED, a North Caro- lina Corporation; JOHN RHEM, JR., a citizen of New Hanover County, North Carolina, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus DANIEL J. BRITAIN, a resident of Georgia; PARAGON INSURANCE SERVICE, INCORPORATED, a Georgia corporation, Defendants - Appellees, and THE TRAV
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2011 MARTHA SCARBORO RHEM, personal representative and administrator of the estate of John Rhem, Jr., deceased, Appellant, R&M ENVIRONMENTAL, INCORPORATED, a North Caro- lina Corporation; JOHN RHEM, JR., a citizen of New Hanover County, North Carolina, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus DANIEL J. BRITAIN, a resident of Georgia; PARAGON INSURANCE SERVICE, INCORPORATED, a Georgia corporation, Defendants - Appellees, and THE TRAVELERS COMPANIES, a Connecticut cor- poration; CITIGROUP INCORPORATED, a corpora- tion authorized to do business in North Caro- lina; TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-99-99-7-F) Submitted: December 21, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bradley Andrew Coxe, ANDERSON, DANIEL & COXE, Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina; David Bruce Collins, Jr., Wilmington, North Caro- lina, for Appellants. Andrew J. Hanley, CROSSLEY, MCINTOSH, PRIOR & COLLIER, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants in their civil action. We have reviewed parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. R&M Envtl., Inc. v. Britain, No. CA-99-99-7-F (E.D.N.C. July 12, 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
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