Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Eller v. Rita Marianni, Inc., 07-1110 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-1110 Visitors: 26
Filed: Dec. 12, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1110 STEVEN ELLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RITA MARIANNI, INCORPORATED; RICHARD CHRIS FAY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Thomas Rawles Jones, Jr., Magistrate Judge. (1:06-cv-00623-TRJ) Submitted: November 28, 2007 Decided: December 12, 2007 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1110 STEVEN ELLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RITA MARIANNI, INCORPORATED; RICHARD CHRIS FAY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Thomas Rawles Jones, Jr., Magistrate Judge. (1:06-cv-00623-TRJ) Submitted: November 28, 2007 Decided: December 12, 2007 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrell N. Roberts, III, ROBERTS & WOOD, Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellant. C. Jay Robbins, IV, MIDKIFF, MUNCIE & ROSS, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steven Eller appeals from the magistrate judge’s orders denying his request for a jury trial and entering judgment in favor of the Defendants on his civil diversity action.* We have reviewed the record included on appeal, including the magistrate judge’s opinion and the parties’ briefs, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. See Eller v. Rita Marianni, Inc., No. 1:06-cv-00623-TRJ (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 5, 2007 & entered Jan. 8, 2007). 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 * The case was tried before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). - 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