Case Name: Mark A. PANOWICZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION; Sharon L. Hancock, in individual capacity; Sharon L. Hancock, Clerk of the Court, Circuit Court for Charles County (in official capacity), Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-05
Citations: 437 F. App'x 239
Docket Number: No. 11-1051
Parties: Mark A. PANOWICZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION; Sharon L. Hancock, in individual capacity; Sharon L. Hancock, Clerk of the Court, Circuit Court for Charles County (in official capacity), Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 437
Pages: 239–239

Head Matter:
Mark A. PANOWICZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION; Sharon L. Hancock, in individual capacity; Sharon L. Hancock, Clerk of the Court, Circuit Court for Charles County (in official capacity), Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-1051.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 30, 2011.
Decided: July 5, 2011.
Mark A. Panowicz, Appellant Pro Se. Ronda Brown Esaw, McGuirewoods, LLP, McLean, Virginia; Hugh Scott Curtis, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark A. Panowicz appeals the district court's order dismissing with prejudice his civil complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), (b)(6). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court at the hearing held on September 24, 2010. Panowicz v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 1:10-cv-00259-LO-TCB (E.D. Va. Dec. 17, 2010; see Mot. Hr'g 15-22, ECF No. 36). 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.