Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Marlow Bates, Sr. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 11-2355 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 11-2355 Visitors: 12
Filed: Sep. 27, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2355 MARLOW L. BATES, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; SONY CORP OF AMERICA; L G ELECTRONICS USA, INC.; MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC & ELECTRONICS USA INC.; PANASONIC ELECTRIC WORKS CORP. OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:10-cv-03158-JFM) Submitted: September 17, 201
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2355 MARLOW L. BATES, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; SONY CORP OF AMERICA; L G ELECTRONICS USA, INC.; MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC & ELECTRONICS USA INC.; PANASONIC ELECTRIC WORKS CORP. OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:10-cv-03158-JFM) Submitted: September 17, 2012 Decided: September 27, 2012 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marlow L. Bates, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. James B. Astrachan, Daniel P. Doty, Julie Rebecca Rubin, ASTRACHAN GUNST AND THOMAS PC, Baltimore, Maryland; David Ira Ackerman, SNR DENTON US LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marlow L. Bates, Sr., appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his copyright infringement suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and denying his post-judgment motion for leave to amend his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Bates v. Samsung Electronics Am., Inc., No. 1:10-cv-03158-JFM (D. Md. July 20, 2011 & Dec. 1, 2011). We further deny Bates’ motion for the appointment of counsel. 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