Case Name: Pepi SCHAFLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Bank of America, NA, Garnishee, v. HSBC BANK USA, Martin J. Glynn, CEO; James H. French, French & Lyon; Phillips Lytle; David J. MacNamara, Managing Partner; Scott D. Miller; Michael B. Powers, Phillips Lytle, Defendants-Appellees, and M & T BANK, Robert E. Sadler, Jr., CEO, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-08-25
Citations: 582 F. App'x 194
Docket Number: No. 14-1509
Parties: Pepi SCHAFLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Bank of America, NA, Garnishee, v. HSBC BANK USA, Martin J. Glynn, CEO; James H. French, French & Lyon; Phillips Lytle; David J. MacNamara, Managing Partner; Scott D. Miller; Michael B. Powers, Phillips Lytle, Defendants-Appellees, and M & T BANK, Robert E. Sadler, Jr., CEO, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 582
Pages: 194–194

Head Matter:
Pepi SCHAFLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Bank of America, NA, Garnishee, v. HSBC BANK USA, Martin J. Glynn, CEO; James H. French, French & Lyon; Phillips Lytle; David J. MacNamara, Managing Partner; Scott D. Miller; Michael B. Powers, Phillips Lytle, Defendants-Appellees, and M & T BANK, Robert E. Sadler, Jr., CEO, Defendant.
No. 14-1509.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 21, 2014.
Decided: Aug. 25, 2014.
Pepi Schafler, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Charles McPhee, Phillips Lytle LLP, Buffalo, New York; Jeremy Schulman, Alexander Craig Vincent, Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker, PA, Potomac, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Pepi Schafler appeals the district court's order entering judgment on a pending writ of garnishment on two of Schafler's bank accounts to satisfy a judgment of attorney's fees and costs against her. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.