Case ID: f-appx_119/html/0571-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert M. WYNE; Nicolas W. Lewis, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. MEDO INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 04-2104.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 27, 2005.
    Decided: Feb. 1, 2005.
    Robert M. Wyne, Nicolas W. Lewis, Appellants pro se.
    Sharon A. Israel, Jenkens & Gilchrist, P.C., Houston, Texas, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Robert M. Wyne and Nicolas W. Lewis appeal the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of Medo Industries, Inc., and denying their motion filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the reasoning of the district court, see Wyne v. Medo Indus., Inc., No. CA-02-1812-RDB (D.Md. Mar. 25, 2004), and find no abuse of the district court’s discretion in its denial of the motion for reconsideration. Collison v. International Chem. Workers Union, 34 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir.1994). We grant Appellants’ motion to place Appellants’ materials under seal. We deny Appellants’ motion for 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