Case Name: William BARNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KOMORI AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, and Komori Printing Machinery Company, Limited, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-04
Citations: 173 F. App'x 302
Docket Number: No. 05-2075
Parties: William BARNES, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. KOMORI AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant—Appellee, and Komori Printing Machinery Company, Limited, Defendant.
Judges: Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 173
Pages: 302–303

Head Matter:
William BARNES, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. KOMORI AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant—Appellee, and Komori Printing Machinery Company, Limited, Defendant.
No. 05-2075.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 4, 2006.
Decided: April 4, 2006.
Eugene A. Shapiro, Shapiro & Schaub, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Sean P. Edwards, Semmes, Bowen & Semines, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
William Barnes appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Komori America Corporation with respect to his civil action alleging a single count of strict liability design defect under Maryland law. We review the granting of summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir.1988). A motion for summary judgment may be granted if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). After thoroughly reviewing the parties' briefs, the record, and the district court's opinion and orders in this case, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Barnes v. Komori Am. Corp., No. CA-03-345-MJG (D.Md. August 16, 2005). 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