Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Federal Kemper Life v. Finglass, 04-1155 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1155 Visitors: 33
Filed: May 17, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1155 FEDERAL KEMPER LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, and KAREN ANN LEIMBACH, Defendant - Appellee, versus DEAN SCOTT FINGLASS, Defendant - Appellant, and CARON BETH FINGLASS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03-81-AMD) Submitted: May 5, 2004 Decided: May 17, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Ju
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1155 FEDERAL KEMPER LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, and KAREN ANN LEIMBACH, Defendant - Appellee, versus DEAN SCOTT FINGLASS, Defendant - Appellant, and CARON BETH FINGLASS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03-81-AMD) Submitted: May 5, 2004 Decided: May 17, 2004 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dean Scott Finglass, Appellant Pro Se. Rob Ross Hendrickson, BOYD, BENSON & HENDRICKSON, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Leimbach. Bryan David Bolton, Hisham M. Amin, FUNK & BOLTON, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Federal Kemper Life Assurance Company. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Dean Scott Finglass appeals the district court’s order and judgment of interpleader granting Karen Ann Leimbach’s motion for summary judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Federal Kemper Life Assurance Co. v. Finglass, No. CA-03-81-AMD (D. Md. Jan. 20, 2004). We grant Finglass’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 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 - 3 -
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