Case Name: NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT COLLABORATIVE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Morton L. GINSBERG, Defendant-Appellant; David F. Albright, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Neighborhood Development Collaborative, Plaintiff-Appellee, and Morton L. Ginsberg, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-22
Citations: 102 F. App'x 811
Docket Number: Nos. 03-2412, 04-1060
Parties: NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT COLLABORATIVE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Morton L. GINSBERG, Defendant-Appellant. David F. Albright, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Neighborhood Development Collaborative, Plaintiff-Appellee, and Morton L. Ginsberg, Defendant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, SHEED, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 102
Pages: 811–812

Head Matter:
NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT COLLABORATIVE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Morton L. GINSBERG, Defendant-Appellant. David F. Albright, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Neighborhood Development Collaborative, Plaintiff-Appellee, and Morton L. Ginsberg, Defendant.
Nos. 03-2412, 04-1060.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 10, 2004.
Decided: July 22, 2004.
David F. Albright, Albright & Goertemiller, L.L.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants.
Thomas N. Biddison, Paul S. Caiola, Gallagher, Evelius & Jones, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, SHEED, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In Appeal No. 03-2412, Morton L. Ginsberg appeals the district court's order denying his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and granting summary judgment in favor of Neighborhood Development Collaborative ("NDC") in NDC's declaratory judgment action. Ginsberg also appeals the court's order denying his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e). In Appeal No. 04-1060, Ginsberg's attorney, David F. Albright, appeals the district court's order imposing sanctions against him in the form of a reprimand. We have reviewed the parties' briefs and the joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Neighborhood Dev. Collaborative v. Ginsberg, No. CA-03-1552-1-AMD (D. Md. Sept. 2, 2003; Oct. 7, 2003; Nov. 22, 2003). 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