Case Name: Robert R. BAREFOOT; Deonna Enterprises, Inc., Appellants v. WELLNESS PUBLISHING; Holt M.D. Consulting, Inc.; Natures Benefit, Inc.; Stephen Holt
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-27
Citations: 440 F. App'x 65
Docket Number: No. 10-1806
Parties: Robert R. BAREFOOT; Deonna Enterprises, Inc., Appellants v. WELLNESS PUBLISHING; Holt M.D. Consulting, Inc.; Natures Benefit, Inc.; Stephen Holt.
Judges: Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SCIRICA and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 440
Pages: 65–66

Head Matter:
Robert R. BAREFOOT; Deonna Enterprises, Inc., Appellants v. WELLNESS PUBLISHING; Holt M.D. Consulting, Inc.; Natures Benefit, Inc.; Stephen Holt.
No. 10-1806.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Tuesday, May 24, 2011.
Opinion filed: July 27, 2011.
Ronald T. Nagle, Esq., Morristown, NJ, for Appellants.
Keith N. Biebelberg, Esq., Biebelberg & Martin, Millburn, NJ, Alan L. Zegas, Esq., Chatham, NJ, for Appellee.
Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SCIRICA and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
McKEE, Chief Judge.
Robert Barefoot and Deonna Enterprises, Inc. appeal the district court's grant of partial summary judgment to Wellness Publishing, Holt M.D. Consulting, Inc., Nature's Benefit, Inc., and Stephen Holt. For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm.
Because we write primarily for the parties, we need not repeat the facts or procedural history of this case. Moreover, the district court has ably summarized the relevant background. See Barefoot v. Wellness Publ'g, 2009 WL 4143110 (D.N.J. Nov.17, 2009). On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment to Stephen Holt and dismissed all claims against him.
In his detailed and thoughtful opinion, Judge Pisano carefully and clearly explained his reasons for dismissing Holt from the lawsuit. See id. He reiterated these reasons in his opinion and order denying Appellants' motion for reconsideration. See Barefoot v. Wellness Publ'g, 2010 WL 893571 (D.N.J. Mar.8, 2010). We can add little to Judge Pisano's analysis and discussion and we will therefore affirm the district court's order for substantially the same reasons as set forth in that opinion.