Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Haj-Mabrouk v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., 09-1777 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-1777 Visitors: 1
Filed: Sep. 13, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1777 RADHIA HAJ-MABROUK, individually and as Parent and Next Friend of L.H., a Minor, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P.; WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:08-cv-01740-JFM) Submitted: August 2, 2010 Decided: September 13, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1777 RADHIA HAJ-MABROUK, individually and as Parent and Next Friend of L.H., a Minor, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P.; WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:08-cv-01740-JFM) Submitted: August 2, 2010 Decided: September 13, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerard J. Emig, Matthew J. Focht, GLEASON, FLYNN, EMIG & FOGLEMAN, CHARTERED, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Warren D. Stephens, DECARO, DORAN, SICILIANO, GALLAGHER & DEBLASIS, LLP, Bowie, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Radhia Haj-Mabrouk, individually and as parent and next friend of L.H., appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., in her civil action alleging that Wal-Mart employees’ negligence resulted in her slip and fall, which caused injuries to her and prenatal injuries to her son. Our review of the record and the briefs filed by the parties discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Haj-Mabrouk v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., No. 1:08-cv- 01740-JFM (D. Md. June 30, 2009). 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
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