Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lomax v. Schindler Elevator, 00-2408 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2408 Visitors: 32
Filed: May 03, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2408 HELEN M. LOMAX, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-199-7) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ca
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2408 HELEN M. LOMAX, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-199-7) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carr L. Kinder, Jr., CARR L. KINDER, JR., P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Victor S. Skaff, III, GENTRY, LOCKE, RAKES & MOORE, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Helen M. Lomax appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Schindler Elevator Corporation in her action in which she alleged a product liability claim and that Schindler’s negligence caused an elevator door to close too quickly on her, injuring her arm and shoulder. We have reviewed the briefs and the joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Lomax v. Schindler Elevator Corp., No. CA-00-199-7 (W.D. Va. filed Oct. 2, 2000; entered Oct. 3, 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