Case Name: Michael KNIGHTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STIHL INCORPORATED, (Third Party Beneficially Capacity and Individual Capacity); Guy Wallace, (Third Party Beneficially Capacity and Individual Capacity); Earl Sykes, (Third Party Beneficially Capacity and Individual Capacity); Oxford Global Resources, (Contracting Capacity), Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-17
Citations: 417 F. App'x 356
Docket Number: No. 10-2118
Parties: Michael KNIGHTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STIHL INCORPORATED, (Third Party Beneficially Capacity and Individual Capacity); Guy Wallace, (Third Party Beneficially Capacity and Individual Capacity); Earl Sykes, (Third Party Beneficially Capacity and Individual Capacity); Oxford Global Resources, (Contracting Capacity), Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 417
Pages: 356–357

Head Matter:
Michael KNIGHTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STIHL INCORPORATED, (Third Party Beneficially Capacity and Individual Capacity); Guy Wallace, (Third Party Beneficially Capacity and Individual Capacity); Earl Sykes, (Third Party Beneficially Capacity and Individual Capacity); Oxford Global Resources, (Contracting Capacity), Defendants—Appellees.
No. 10-2118.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 15, 2011.
Decided: March 17, 2011.
Michael Knights, Appellant Pro Se. Robert W. McFarland, McGuirewoods, LLP, Norfolk, Virginia; Melanie Gayle Augustin, Thomas Joseph Flaherty, Littler Mendelson, P.C., McLean, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Knights appeals the district court's final order dismissing his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Knights v. Stihl Inc., No. 2:10-cv-00260-RAJ-DEM (E.D. Va. Sept. 13, 2010; Aug. 5, 2010). 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.