Filed: Apr. 29, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1061 JOHN EDMOND; PAMELA LYLES, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. EDWARD MAHER; JUDY NIGH; SNOWDEN CHASE REALTY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:07-cv-02883-DKC) Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 29, 2008 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1061 JOHN EDMOND; PAMELA LYLES, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. EDWARD MAHER; JUDY NIGH; SNOWDEN CHASE REALTY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:07-cv-02883-DKC) Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 29, 2008 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1061 JOHN EDMOND; PAMELA LYLES, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. EDWARD MAHER; JUDY NIGH; SNOWDEN CHASE REALTY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:07-cv-02883-DKC) Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 29, 2008 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Edmond, Pamela Lyles, Appellants Pro Se. William Leonard Mitchell, II, ECCLESTON & WOLF, P.C., Washington, D.C.; Juliane Corroon Miller, HUDGINS LAW FIRM, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Edmond and Pamela Lyles appeal from the district court’s order dismissing their civil action on the grounds of res judicata. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Edmond v. Maher, No. 8:07-cv-02883-DKC (D. Md. Nov. 13, 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 - 2 -
