Case Name: Kevin POTTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Intervenors/Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Marguerite C. Potter; Harry H. Potter, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-01
Citations: 170 F. App'x 272
Docket Number: No. 05-1474
Parties: Kevin POTTER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Intervenors/Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. Marguerite C. Potter; Harry H. Potter, Defendants—Appellants.
Judges: Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 170
Pages: 272–273

Head Matter:
Kevin POTTER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Intervenors/Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. Marguerite C. Potter; Harry H. Potter, Defendants—Appellants.
No. 05-1474.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.
Decided March 1, 2006.
Kevin Potter, Marguerite C. Potter, and Harry H. Potter, Appellants Pro Se. Patricia McHugh Lambert, Robert St. John Campbell, Hodes, Ulman, Pessin & Katz, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before KING, SHEDD, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kevin Potter, Marguerite C. Potter, and Harry H. Potter appeal the district court's final order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment and district court orders dated May 15, 2000, Nov. 28, 2000, Mar. 29, 2001, Aug. 22, 2001, Oct. 23, 2001, and magistrate judge's report and recommendation dated Mar. 5, 2003, and order dated Mar. 17, 2003. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Potter v. Nationwide Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. CA-00-63AMD (D.Md. March 28, 2005). 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
This court has limited its review to the issues discussed in Appellants' informal briefs. See 4th Cir. Rule 34(b).