Filed: Oct. 06, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1435 TIMOTHY R. MARTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SCOTT & STRINGFELLOW, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:06-cv-00207-HEH) Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: October 6, 2008 Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy R. Martin, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1435 TIMOTHY R. MARTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SCOTT & STRINGFELLOW, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:06-cv-00207-HEH) Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: October 6, 2008 Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy R. Martin, Appellant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1435 TIMOTHY R. MARTIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SCOTT & STRINGFELLOW, INC., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:06-cv-00207-HEH) Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: October 6, 2008 Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Timothy R. Martin, Appellant Pro Se. David Edward Constine, III, TROUTMAN & SANDERS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Timothy R. Martin appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate the arbitration award granted to Scott & Stringfellow, Inc. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Martin’s motion to supplement his reply brief, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Martin v. Scott & Stringfellow, Inc., No. 3:06-cv-00207-HEH (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 13, entered Mar. 14, 2008). 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
