Scaggs v. McGinnis Brothers, (4th Cir. 2002)
Linked as:
Text
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1269 GLENN R. SCAGGS; JAMIE SCAGGS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus
MCGINNIS BROTHERS, INCORPORATED, d/b/a
McCorkle Machine & Engineering, a West
Virginia Corporation, Defendant - Appellee, and
SULZER METCO (US) INCORPORATED, a foreign
corporation with offices in New York; EUTECTIC
CORPORATION, a foreign corporation with
offices in Illinois; WALL COLMONOY
CORPORATION, a foreign corporation with
offices in Michigan; ERVIN INDUSTRIES, a
foreign corporation with offices in Michigan;
BARNSTEEL ABRASIVES, a foreign corporation
with offices in Pennsylvania; PEERLESS METAL
POWDERS & ABRASIVES, INCORPORATED, a foreign
corporation with offices in Michigan; GLOBE
STEEL ABRASIVES, a foreign corporation with
offices in Ohio; STEEL ABRASIVES,
INCORPORATED, a foreign corporation with
offices in Ohio; BAY STATE ABRASIVES,
INCORPORATED, a foreign corporation with
offices in Massachusetts; STELLITE COATINGS, a
division of Deloro Stellite Company,
Incorporated, a foreign corporation with
offices in Indiana; OMG AMERICAS,
INCORPORATED, formerly known as SCM Metal
Products, Incorporated, a foreign corporation
with offices in North Carolina, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (CA-99-819)
Submitted: August 13, 2002 Decided: September 20, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Harley Carriger, LAW OFFICES OF STUART CALWELL, Charleston,
West Virginia, for Appellants. Jay M. Potter, SCHUMACHER, FRANCIS
& NELSON, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM
Glenn R. Scaggs and Jamie Scaggs appeal the district court’s order granting Defendants summary judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Scaggs v. McGinnis Bros., Inc. , No. CA-99-819 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 31, 2002). 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
Sponsored links
