Filed: Mar. 10, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1384 R.T., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. N.G.S.C.; J.O.; E.M., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:07-cv-01079-RDB; 1:06-cv-01196-RDB) Submitted: February 12, 2009 Decided: March 10, 2009 Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. R.T., Appellant Pro Se. Adam Har
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1384 R.T., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. N.G.S.C.; J.O.; E.M., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:07-cv-01079-RDB; 1:06-cv-01196-RDB) Submitted: February 12, 2009 Decided: March 10, 2009 Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. R.T., Appellant Pro Se. Adam Harr..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1384 R.T., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. N.G.S.C.; J.O.; E.M., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:07-cv-01079-RDB; 1:06-cv-01196-RDB) Submitted: February 12, 2009 Decided: March 10, 2009 Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. R.T., Appellant Pro Se. Adam Harrison Garner, Robert Ross Niccolini, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: R.T. appeals the district court’s order denying his petition to vacate in part and confirm in part an arbitrator’s final award and his petition to vacate a second arbitrator’s order dismissing the claims raised in a subsequent arbitration action as barred by res judicata. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. R.T. v. N.G.S.C., Nos. 1:06-cv-01196-RDB; 1:07-cv-01079-RDB (D. Md. Feb. 26 & 27, 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