Case Name: Charles Davis BURRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GLASCOCK AUTO SALES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Charlie Falk Auto Sales, Incorporated; Future Finance Corporation; Marshall Brothers Towing; John Doe # 2; Charlie Falk Auto, Incorporated; Wayne Marshall; Marshall Brothers Auto Body, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-27
Citations: 6 F. App'x 170
Docket Number: No. 00-2454
Parties: Charles Davis BURRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GLASCOCK AUTO SALES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Charlie Falk Auto Sales, Incorporated; Future Finance Corporation; Marshall Brothers Towing; John Doe # 2; Charlie Falk Auto, Incorporated; Wayne Marshall; Marshall Brothers Auto Body, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 6
Pages: 170–171

Head Matter:
Charles Davis BURRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GLASCOCK AUTO SALES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a Charlie Falk Auto Sales, Incorporated; Future Finance Corporation; Marshall Brothers Towing; John Doe # 2; Charlie Falk Auto, Incorporated; Wayne Marshall; Marshall Brothers Auto Body, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 00-2454.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 22, 2001.
Decided March 27, 2001.
Charles Davis Burrell, pro se. William Frederick Jones, Williams, Mullen, Clark & Dobbins, Richmond, VA; Tommy P. Baer, Paul McCourt Curley, Canfield, Shapiro, Baer & Heller, L.L.P., Richmond, VA, for appellees.
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Charles Davis Burrell appeals from the district court's order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Because there is neither diversity of citizenship nor a federal question involved in the suit, the district court properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We, therefore, affirm. 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.