Lajuan Martin v. Freddie Winston, Jr.
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:16-cv-04140-PJM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Isaac Henry Marks and Lajuan F. Martin. [17-2297]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
LAJUAN F. MARTIN; WINSTON MARTIN HOLDING GROUP, LLC,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
FREDDIE L. WINSTON, JR.; 9620 INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:16-cv-04140-PJM)
Submitted: June 20, 2018
Decided: July 6, 2018
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lajuan F. Martin, Appellant Pro Se; Adam Hosea Levi, LEVI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant Winston Martin Holding Group, LLC.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
LaJuan F. Martin and Winston Martin Holding Group, LLC (“WMHG”) appeal the
district court’s order denying their motion for summary judgment, granting Defendants’
motion for summary judgment, and entering final judgment in favor of Defendants. We
We review an order granting summary judgment de novo, “drawing reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Butler v. Drive Auto.
Indus. of Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 404, 407 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“Summary judgment is proper ‘if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Id. at 408
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). The relevant inquiry is whether the evidence “presents a
sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that
one party must prevail as a matter of law.” McAirlaids, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 756
F.3d 307, 310 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Applying these principles to the record before us, we discern no reversible error in
the district court’s conclusion that the parties were precluded from relitigating the issue of
who holds legal title to the disputed piece of property in Upper Marlboro, Maryland. See
Martin v. Winston, No. 8:16-cv-04140-PJM (D. Md. filed July 24, 2017, entered July 25,
2017). Because each of the claims in Martin and WMHG’s complaint relied on the premise
that WMHG holds legal title to the property, and because the Maryland courts have entered
judgment holding that Freddie Winston, Jr., held legal title to the property—a title Winston
Pg: 3 of 3
subsequently conveyed to 9620 Investments, LLC—summary judgment was proper as to
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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.
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?