UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2080

LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION; EQUIFAX CREDIT INFORMATION SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 97-2376

LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee, and EQUIFAX CREDIT INFORMATION SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA- 97-1969-S)

Submitted: December 18, 1997 Decided: Janury 7, 1998

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lawrence Verline Wilder, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Moss Wood, IV, NEUBERGER, QUINN, GIELEN, RUBIN & GIBBER, P.A., Baltimore, Mary- land; Michael N. Russo, Jr., FERGUSON, SCHETELICH, HEFFERNAN & MURDOCK, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: In No. 97-2080, Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion for recusal and the district court's marginal order denying his motion to amend his complaint and for appointment of counsel. Although Appellant's appeal of the district court's order denying his motions was interlocutory when filed, it is now ripe because the district court entered final judgment prior to this court's review of the appeal. See Equipment Finance Group, Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347 (4th Cir. 1992). In No. 97-2376, Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion for summary judgment, granting Appellee's motion for summary judgment, and dismissing Appellant's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reason- ing of the district court. Wilder v. Toyota Motor Credit, No. CA- 97-1969-S (D. Md. Aug. 6, 1997; Sept. 24, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED