Case Name: RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, Incorporated, a Pennsylvania corporation, Plaintiff, v. William Ray MILLER, II, Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant, and J.L. Hickman & Company, Incorporated, a/k/a IFA Insurance Services, Incorporated, a Texas corporation; John L. Hickman, Defendants, and Donna Mannino, Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff, v. Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-15
Citations: 5 F. App'x 279
Docket Number: No. 00-1051
Parties: RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, Incorporated, a Pennsylvania corporation, Plaintiff, v. William Ray MILLER, II, Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant, and J.L. Hickman & Company, Incorporated, a/k/a IFA Insurance Services, Incorporated, a Texas corporation; John L. Hickman, Defendants, and Donna Mannino, Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff, v. Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 5
Pages: 279–279

Head Matter:
RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, Incorporated, a Pennsylvania corporation, Plaintiff, v. William Ray MILLER, II, Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant, and J.L. Hickman & Company, Incorporated, a/k/a IFA Insurance Services, Incorporated, a Texas corporation; John L. Hickman, Defendants, and Donna Mannino, Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff, v. Utica Mutual Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant-Appellee.
No. 00-1051.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2001.
Decided March 15, 2001.
William Ray Miller, II, pro se. Lon Arthur Berk, Shaw Pittman, Washington, DC; Paula Lynn Primost, Shaw Pittman, McLean, VA, for appellee.
Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
William Ray Miller, II, appeals the district court's orders granting Utica's motion for summary judgment on his third party complaint and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Miller v. Utica Mutual Ins. Co., No. CA-97-3194-MJG (D.Md. Sept. 22 & Nov. 24, 1999). 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.