Brothers of the Wheel M.C. v. Gerald Mollohan

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:11-cv-00104 Copies to all parties and the district court. [999613835]. Mailed to: Gerald Mollohan. [14-1813, 14-1815]

Appeal: 14-1813

Doc: 27

Filed: 07/02/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1813

BROTHERS OF THE WHEEL M.C. EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, INC., a West
Virginia Corporation,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GERALD R. MOLLOHAN,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
JOHN DOES 1-50,
Defendant.

No. 14-1815

BROTHERS OF THE WHEEL M.C. EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, INC., a West
Virginia Corporation,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GERALD R. MOLLOHAN,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
JOHN DOES 1-50,
Defendant.

Appeal: 14-1813

Doc: 27

Filed: 07/02/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (2:11-cv-00104)

Submitted:

April 24, 2015

Before SHEDD, Circuit
Circuit Judges.

Judge,

Decided:

and

HAMILTON

and

July 2, 2015

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard J. Lindroth, South Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Gerald R. Mollohan, Appellee/CrossAppellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-1813

Doc: 27

Filed: 07/02/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cross-appeals, Plaintiff Brothers of
the Wheel M.C. Executive Council, Inc. and Defendant Gerald R.
Mollohan appeal the district court’s final judgment order in
this trademark infringement case.
numerous assignments of error.

On appeal, the parties raise
Having carefully reviewed the

briefs, the record, and the relevant law, we conclude that each
assignment of error is without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court.

See Brothers of

the Wheel M.C. Exec. Council, Inc. v. Mollohan, No. 2:11-cv00104 (S.D. W. Va. Feb. 19, 2014; Feb. 14, 2014; June 25, 2013;
June 6, 2013; Nov. 14, 2012).

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3