Filed: May 02, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1031 JOSEPH HART, JR.; MARY F. HART, Wife, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus THE FISHER LAW GROUP (PLCC), ET AL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-02- 4175-MJG) Submitted: April 24, 2003 Decided: May 2, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Ha
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1031 JOSEPH HART, JR.; MARY F. HART, Wife, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus THE FISHER LAW GROUP (PLCC), ET AL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-02- 4175-MJG) Submitted: April 24, 2003 Decided: May 2, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Har..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1031 JOSEPH HART, JR.; MARY F. HART, Wife, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus THE FISHER LAW GROUP (PLCC), ET AL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-02- 4175-MJG) Submitted: April 24, 2003 Decided: May 2, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Hart, Jr., Mary F. Hart, Appellants Pro Se. Martin Stuart Goldberg, THE FISHER LAW GROUP, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joseph and Mary Hart appeal from the district court’s order dismissing their complaint sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny Appellants’ motion for the appointment of counsel. 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
