Filed: Mar. 19, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1123 PHILLIP L. CAMERON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MTD PRODUCT INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-75) Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 19, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip L. Cameron,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1123 PHILLIP L. CAMERON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MTD PRODUCT INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-75) Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 19, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip L. Cameron, A..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1123 PHILLIP L. CAMERON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MTD PRODUCT INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-75) Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 19, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip L. Cameron, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Francis McKenna, MCKENNA & CHIODO, P.C., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Phillip L. Cameron appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for judgment by default and dismissing his products liability diversity action as untimely. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Cameron v. MTD Product Inc., No. CA-03-75 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 7, 2004). 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 -
