Filed: Aug. 29, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1861 ROBERT CHRISTOPHER KETTENBURG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GEICO INSURANCE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cv-01644-PJM) Submitted: August 21, 2013 Decided: August 29, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam. Robert Christopher Kettenburg, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1861 ROBERT CHRISTOPHER KETTENBURG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GEICO INSURANCE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cv-01644-PJM) Submitted: August 21, 2013 Decided: August 29, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam. Robert Christopher Kettenburg, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1861 ROBERT CHRISTOPHER KETTENBURG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GEICO INSURANCE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:13-cv-01644-PJM) Submitted: August 21, 2013 Decided: August 29, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam. Robert Christopher Kettenburg, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Christopher Kettenburg appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Kettenburg v. GEICO Ins., No. 8:13-cv-01644-PJM (D. Md. June 19, 2013). We deny Kettenburg’s motion for waiver of service. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
