Case Name: The HUNTINGTON MORTGAGE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard G. SHERMAN; Tracy O. Hobson, Defendants-Appellees, and Mortgage Power Financial Services, Incorporated; Jang Hoo Joo; Hyung Son; Jorge Estrada; Jose Jovel, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-02-15
Citations: 3 F. App'x 126
Docket Number: No. 00-1480
Parties: The HUNTINGTON MORTGAGE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard G. SHERMAN; Tracy O. Hobson, Defendants-Appellees, and Mortgage Power Financial Services, Incorporated; Jang Hoo Joo; Hyung Son; Jorge Estrada; Jose Jovel, Defendants.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 3
Pages: 126–127

Head Matter:
The HUNTINGTON MORTGAGE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard G. SHERMAN; Tracy O. Hobson, Defendants-Appellees, and Mortgage Power Financial Services, Incorporated; Jang Hoo Joo; Hyung Son; Jorge Estrada; Jose Jovel, Defendants.
No. 00-1480.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 31, 2001.
Decided Feb. 15, 2001.
Hansel H. Rhee, Lee & McShane, P.C., Washington, DC, for appellant.
John R. Tjaden, Silver Spring, Maryland; Kevin Karpinski, Allen, Johnson, Alexander & Karp, Baltimore, MD, for appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The Huntington Mortgage Company appeals from the district court's order awarding summary judgment to Richard Sherman and Tracy Hobson on its claim alleging negligent misrepresentation under Maryland law. Our review of the record, the parties' briefs, and the district court's opinions discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Hobson's motion to file a surreply brief and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. The Huntington Mortgage Co. v. Sherman, No. CA-97-2498-AW (D.Md. filed Aug. 31, 1999; entered Sept. 3, 1999; filed Mar. 14, 2000; entered Mar. 15, 2000). 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.