Case Name: Jaime GARCIA; Elvira Garcia, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ronald D. KIRSTIEN, O'Stein Brothers L.P. No. 4; Harvey Rothstein, O'Stein Brothers L.P. No. 4; Randy Habeck, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-07
Citations: 184 F. App'x 292
Docket Number: No. 05-1549
Parties: Jaime GARCIA; Elvira Garcia, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ronald D. KIRSTIEN, O’Stein Brothers L.P. No. 4; Harvey Rothstein, O’Stein Brothers L.P. No. 4; Randy Habeck, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 184
Pages: 292–292

Head Matter:
Jaime GARCIA; Elvira Garcia, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ronald D. KIRSTIEN, O’Stein Brothers L.P. No. 4; Harvey Rothstein, O’Stein Brothers L.P. No. 4; Randy Habeck, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-1549.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 28, 2006.
Decided: June 7, 2006.
David F. Albright, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Craig David Roswell, Matthew A. Swartz, Niles, Barton & Wilmer, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland; Patrick John Kearney, Selzer, Gurvitch, Rabin & Obency, Chtd., Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jaime and Elvira Garcia appeal from the district court's orders granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants and denying their motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have reviewed the parties' briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court's opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See Garcia v. Kirstien, No. CA-01-103BEL-1 (D. Md. filed Sept. 30, 2004 & entered Oct. 1, 2004; filed Apr. 8, 2005 & entered Apr. 11, 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.