Case Name: Gary Amos McLAUGHLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-10-08
Citations: 47 F. App'x 659
Docket Number: No. 02-1553
Parties: Gary Amos McLAUGHLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 47
Pages: 659–659

Head Matter:
Gary Amos McLAUGHLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 02-1553.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2002.
Decided Oct. 8, 2002.
Gary Amos McLaughlin, Appellant Pro Se. William L. Bands, Bell & Bands, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Gary McLaughlin appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant, Daimler-Chrysler Corporation in this action under West Virginia's lemon law, W. Va.Code Ann. § 46A-6A-1 through 46A-6A-9 (Michie 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the district court's reasoning that McLaughlin was not a consumer within the scope of W. Va.Code Ann. § 46A-6A-2, and thus was not protected by the statute. See McLaughlin v. Chrysler Corp., No. CA-98-115-2 (N.D.W.Va. May 3, 2002). 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.
Because we find this issue dispositive, we have not considered, and express no opinion, as to the alternative basis for the district court's judgment.