Opinions of the United 2002 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

7-19-2002

Prince v. LBS Dev Co Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 01-3394

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

Recommended Citation "Prince v. LBS Dev Co" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 419. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/419

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No: 01-3394

MICHELLE PRINCE; THOMAS M. PRINCE, a minor, by and through his parent and guardian Michelle Prince

v.

LBS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; PATRICK STAMBAUGH

Michelle Prince, Appellant

No: 01-3513

MICHELLE PRINCE; THOMAS M. PRINCE, a minor, by and through his parent and guardian Michelle Prince

v.

LBS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY; PATRICK STAMBAUGH

Michelle Prince, Appellant

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania D.C. Civil No. 99-cv-01287 District Judge: Hon. Yvette Kane Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 15, 2002 Before: McKee, Weis and Duhe, Circuit Judges (Filed: July 19, 2002)

OPINION OF THE COURT

McKEE, Circuit Judge. Michelle and Thomas Prince appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on the plaintiffs’ claim for race and gender discrimination under the Fair Housing Act. We will affirm. Inasmuch as we write only for the parties, we will not set forth the factual background of this litigation. We have reviewed the Memorandum and Order filed by the district court on August 9, 2001 explaining the court’s reasons for granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment against the plaintiffs. In that Memorandum, the court cogently and thoroughly explained why plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed. We agree with the court’s reasoning and will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the court in the thoughtful Memorandum and Order of August 9, 2001. TO THE CLERK: Please file the foregoing opinion. By the court, /s/Theodore A. McKee Circuit Judg