Elawyers Elawyers

Romeril Appraisal v. Stevens Real Estate, 00-2490 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2490 Visitors: 6
Filed: Sep. 10, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2490 ROMERIL APPRAISAL GROUP, INCORPORATED; JEAN ROMERIL, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus STEVENS REAL ESTATE, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Cold- well Banker Stevens Realtors; ANTHONY GIGLIO; DANIEL BOWES; LISA YARNELL-KRAUSS, Defendants - Appellees, and PRINCE WILLIAM ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INCOR- PORATED; THOMAS MORCOM; WILLARD GALBRAITH, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virgin
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2490 ROMERIL APPRAISAL GROUP, INCORPORATED; JEAN ROMERIL, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus STEVENS REAL ESTATE, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Cold- well Banker Stevens Realtors; ANTHONY GIGLIO; DANIEL BOWES; LISA YARNELL-KRAUSS, Defendants - Appellees, and PRINCE WILLIAM ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INCOR- PORATED; THOMAS MORCOM; WILLARD GALBRAITH, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-00-627-A) Submitted: July 31, 2001 Decided: September 10, 2001 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and Irene M. KEELEY, Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas O. Mason, Rachel L. Smith, WILLIAMS, MULLEN, CLARK & DOBBINS, McLean, Virginia; James S. DelSordo, Manassas, Virginia, for Appellants. Douglas M. Coleman, David S. Panzer, CARTER & COLEMAN, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Romeril Appraisal Group Inc. and Jean Romeril appeal the dis- trict court’s orders dismissing their civil action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), denying their Motion to Reconsider filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), and denying their Motion for Leave to Amend filed in conjunction with the Motion to Reconsider. 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 Romeril Appraisal Group, Inc. v. Stevens Real Estate, Inc., No. CA-00-627-A (E.D. Va. Oct. 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