Case Name: FIELD AUTO CITY, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; General Motors Acceptance Corporation, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-15
Citations: 254 F. App'x 167
Docket Number: No. 07-1388
Parties: FIELD AUTO CITY, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; General Motors Acceptance Corporation, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 254
Pages: 167–168

Head Matter:
FIELD AUTO CITY, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; General Motors Acceptance Corporation, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 07-1388.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 2, 2007.
Decided: Nov. 15, 2007.
Michael P. Fortkort, Michael P. Fortkort PC, Oak Hill, Virginia, for Appellant. David G. Barger, Kathleen J. Holmes, Williams Mullen, McLean, Virginia; Monroe Kelly III, Joseph R. Mayes, Williams Mullen, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Sheila L. Shadmand, Jones Day, Washington, D.C.; Jeffrey J. Jones, T. Todd Kennard, Jones Day, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Field Auto City, Inc. appeals the district court's orders granting Defendants' motion to dismiss its claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2000), and the Automobile Dealer's Day in Court Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1221-1225 (2000), and denying its motion to amend the complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Field Auto City, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., No. 1:06-cv-01174-TSE (E.D. Va. Feb. 28, 2007; Mar. 22, 2007). We deny Defendants' motion to strike Field Auto's reply brief. 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.