First Baptist Church of Glenar v. New Market Metalcraft, Inc

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:10-cv-00543-AW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998651558].. [10-1991]

Download PDF
Appeal: 10-1991 Document: 37 Date Filed: 08/10/2011 Page: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1991 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF GLENARDEN, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. NEW MARKET METALCRAFT, INCORPORATED, a Virginia corporation, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:10-cv-00543-AW) Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 10, 2011 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael J. Melkersen, THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL J. MELKERSEN, New Market, Virginia, for Appellant. Susan M. Euteneuer, DUANE MORRIS, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Daniel E. Toomey, DUANE MORRIS, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 10-1991 Document: 37 Date Filed: 08/10/2011 Page: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: New court’s Market order Metalcraft, granting First Inc., Baptist motion to confirm an arbitration award. appeals Church the of district Glenarden’s We have reviewed the record included on appeal, as well as the briefs filed by the parties, and find no error in the district court’s ruling. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. First Baptist Church of Glenarden v. New Market Metalcraft, Inc., No. 8:10-cv-00543-AW (D. Md. July 30, 2010). 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 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?