UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1533

JOSEPH SCOTTO, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce Scotto; THEODORE JOSEPH SCOTTO, Individually and as a minor through his natural father and guardian Joseph Scotto,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

and

MELINA BELLE SCOTTO; THERESA SCOTTO ROSETTE; GIA JOYCE SCOTTO MCDANIEL,

Plaintiffs,

versus

MAFCO WORLDWIDE CORPORATION; MACANDREWS & FORBES GROUP, INCORPORATED; M.F. NEAL & COMPANY,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

GUY ALLEN DIETRICH,

Defendant. No. 99-1585

JOSEPH SCOTTO, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joyce Scotto; THEODORE JOSEPH SCOTTO, Individually and as a minor through his natural father and guardian Joseph Scotto; MELINA BELLE SCOTTO; THERESA SCOTTO ROSETTE; GIA JOYCE SCOTTO MCDANIEL,

Plaintiffs,

versus

GUY ALLEN DIETRICH,

Defendant - Appellant,

versus

MAFCO WORLDWIDE CORPORATION; MACANDREWS & FORBES GROUP, INCORPORATED; M.F. NEAL & COMPANY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-3891-AW)

Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 1, 2000

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

2 Henry R. Lord, PIPER & MARBURY, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland; Charles S. Fax, Baltimore, Maryland; Michael B. Green, Towson, Maryland, for Appellants. Janet M. Truhe, MILLER & TRUHE, L.L.C., Westminster, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

3 PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs Joseph and Theodore Scotto are joined by Defendant

Guy Allen Dietrich in appealing the district court’s order granting

summary judgment to Defendants MAFCO Worldwide Corporation,

MacAndrews & Forbes Group, Inc., and M.F. Neal & Co (the “MAFCO

Defendants”) in the Plaintiffs’ civil suit for a survival action,

negligence and wrongful death resulting from an automobile

accident. Appellants and Cross-Appellant allege that the district

court erred in finding that the MAFCO Defendants were not

vicariously liable for the negligence of the individual Defendant

Dietrich because he was not within the scope of employment when the

accident in question occurred. We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. According-

ly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See JA 376-

84. 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

4