UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2293

MARK P. HESSEK; ARTHUR E. DEANGELIS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus

NORTH AMERICAN MORTGAGE INSURANCE SERVICES; NORTH AMERICAN COMPANY FOR LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE, and related companies; DIME SAVINGS BANK OF NEW YORK, FSB, and all its related insurance and mortgage services; NORTH AMERICAN MORTGAGE COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees, and

MARTIN SCOTT, President, Insurance Agent and Broker; RICHARD MIRRO, President and CEO; MELVIN CEBRIK, Senior Vice President; GARY ANDRASKO, CLU, Vice President; LAWRENCE TOAL, President, CEO and Chairman; MICHAEL ENG, Vice President, Corporate Attorney; JOHN C. WATSON, Chairman and CEO; MICHAEL MASTERSON, President NACOLAH; ALL SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS; FRED MILLER, Manager, Phoenix Office, NAMIS; CHRISTOPHER MORGA, Assistant Manager, Phoenix Office, NAMIS; BEN ROLFES, Manager, Life Division, Virginia Beach NAMIS Office; DIME INSURANCE GROUP, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-985) Submitted: March 29, 2004 Decided: April 20, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark P. Hessek, Arthur E. DeAngelis, Appellants Pro Se. James Phillip Naughton, Sara Lynne Berg, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Norfolk, Virginia; Bryan David Bolton, Michael Patrick Cunningham, FUNK & BOLTON, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland; Eric Wagner Schwartz, TROUTMAN SANDERS, L.L.P., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM: Mark P. Hessek and Arthur E. DeAngelis appeal the district court’s order denying relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961- (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hessek v. North American Mortgage Ins. Servs., No. CA- 02-985 (E.D. Va. Oct. 17, 2003). 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

- 3 -