Daniel Heily v. Woodcrest Propertie

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to strike [998543449-2]; denying Motion for other relief [998523694-2] Originating case number: 5:10-cv-00094-gec Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998624857]. Mailed to: C.M. Welch, Warren Heily. [11-1062]

Appeal: 11-1062

Document: 23

Date Filed: 07/05/2011

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1062

DANIEL E. HEILY; WARREN HEILY; C.M. WELCH,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
WOODCREST
PROPERTIES,
(partnership);
GENERAL
PARTNER,
WOODCREST PROPERTIES; GVK VENTURES, (partnership); GENERAL
PARTNER GVK VENTURES; JAMES D TODD; HOUSTIN I TODD; V-K
PROPERTIES, INC.; PAUL P VAMES, President, V-K Properties,
Inc.; RUTH T EDWARDS, Secretary/Treasurer V-K Properties,
Inc.; STUANHOPE PROPERTIES, L.L.C.; V-K PROPERTIES OF
VIRGINIA, (partnership); GENERAL PARTNER, V-K Properties of
Virginia; SALLY VENT; ENGLEWOOD APARTMENTS,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (5:10-cv-00094-gec)

Submitted:

June 30, 2011

Decided:

July 5, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel E. Heily; Warren Heily; C.M. Welch, Appellants Pro Se.
William Entenmann Shmidheiser, III, LENHART & OBENSHAIN, PC,
Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-1062

Document: 23

Date Filed: 07/05/2011

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Daniel E. Heily, Warren Heily, and C.M. Welch appeal
the district court’s order dismissing their civil action.
have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

We

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

Heily

v.

Woodcrest

(W.D. Va. Dec. 16, 2010).

Properties,

No.

5:10-cv-00094-gec

We deny Appellants’ motions to strike

Appellees’ brief and to recuse their attorney.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

the

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2