John Manley v. John Doe

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:10-cv-00154-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998957864].. [12-1286]

Appeal: 12-1286

Doc: 21

Filed: 10/12/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1286

JOHN D. MANLEY; KAREN MANLEY,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
WENDY'S
INTERNATIONAL,
INC.;
CORPORATION, d/b/a Wendys,

FIRST

SUN

MANAGEMENT

Defendants – Appellees,
JOHN DOE,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (7:10-cv-00154-D)

Submitted:

August 24, 2012

Decided:

October 12, 2012

Before KEENAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John M. Kirby, LAW OFFICES OF JOHN M. KIRBY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellants.
Regan S. Toups, CRANFILL SUMNER &
HARTZOG, LLP, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1286

Doc: 21

Filed: 10/12/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
John

Manley

appeals

the

district

court’s

grant

of

summary judgment in favor of Wendy’s International, Inc. and
First Sun Management Corporation, d/b/a Wendy’s, (collectively
Defendants) with respect to his claims under North Carolina law
for

breach

of

negligence.
district

implied

Karen

court’s

warranty

Manley,
grant

wife

of

of

summary

of
John

merchantability

and

Manley,

appeals

the

favor

of

judgment

in

Defendants with respect to her claim under North Carolina law
for loss of consortium.

Having carefully reviewed the briefs,

the record, and the relevant law, we affirm on the reasoning of
the

district

court,

as

stated

in

its

February

2,

2012

Manley v. Wendy’s Int’l, Inc., 849 F. Supp. 2d 594

order.

(E.D.N.C. 2012).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

- 2 -