U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1998

Goodman v. Jones Blechman Woltz

Goodman v. Jones Blechman Woltz
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided October 22, 1998

Goodman v. Jones Blechman Woltz

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1763

WALTER GOODMAN, sole surviving shareholder of Newport Centre Investment Corporation, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

JONES, BLECHMAN, WOLTZ & KELLY, PC, A Professional Legal Corporation; EDWARD DWIGHT DAVID, Esq., Counsel to Plaintiff; KEVIN W.

GRIERSON, Esq., Attorney with Jones, Blechman, Woltz and Kelly; JAMES F. THORNTON, III, Esq., Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-97-31-4)

Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 22, 1998

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter Goodman, Appellant Pro Se. John Y. Pearson, Jr., Frank Alwin Edgar, Jr., WILLCOX & SAVAGE, Norfolk, Virginia; Steven Scott Biss, MALONEY, HUENNEKENS, PARKS, GECKER & PARSONS, Richmond, Virginia; Lloyd Lee Byrd, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Rich- mond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order granting Ap- pellees’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Goodman v. Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly, P.C., No. CA-97-31-4 (E.D. Va. Apr. 13, 1998). 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.