Case Name: HARLEY J. ROBINSON TRUST, a Michigan Trust, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARDMORE ACRES, INC., a Michigan corporation; United States of America; State of Michigan; Michigan Employment Security Commission, Defendants, Henry Woodworth, M.D.; Mamoun Dabbagh, M.D.; Robert Niccolini, M.D., Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-02
Citations: 140 F. App'x 599
Docket Number: No. 04-1388
Parties: HARLEY J. ROBINSON TRUST, a Michigan Trust, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARDMORE ACRES, INC., a Michigan corporation; United States of America; State of Michigan; Michigan Employment Security Commission, Defendants, Henry Woodworth, M.D.; Mamoun Dabbagh, M.D.; Robert Niccolini, M.D., Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before NORRIS and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges; JORDAN, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 140
Pages: 599–600

Head Matter:
HARLEY J. ROBINSON TRUST, a Michigan Trust, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARDMORE ACRES, INC., a Michigan corporation; United States of America; State of Michigan; Michigan Employment Security Commission, Defendants, Henry Woodworth, M.D.; Mamoun Dabbagh, M.D.; Robert Niccolini, M.D., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 04-1388.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Aug. 2, 2005.
Jeffrey T. Neilson, Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, Troy, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael C. Curhan, Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, Michael E. Fisher, Bloomfield Hills, MI, for Defendants.
Stephen M. Ryan, Bingham Farms, MI, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before NORRIS and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges; JORDAN, District Judge.
The Honorable R. Leon Jordan, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Defendants, Henry Woodworth, M.D., Mamoun Dabbagh, M.D., and Robert Nieeolini, M.D., appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiff Harley J. Robinson Trust ("Trust") in this priority dispute among lien holders.
Having carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to plaintiff.
Because the reasoning which supports summary judgment for plaintiff has been articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning employed by that court in its Memorandum and Order filed on February 12, 2004.