Case Name: James KING; Linda King; Wendy King, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Stanley James Development Corporation, Plaintiff, v. LAW FIRM OF GOLDMAN & VETTER; Big Creek Enterprises, Incorporated, an Illinois Corporation and James Elson; Midamerica National Bank, and Mr. David Hayes; Irving Evans; Garnet Evans, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-06
Citations: 110 F. App'x 332
Docket Number: No. 03-1138
Parties: James KING; Linda King; Wendy King, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Stanley James Development Corporation, Plaintiff, v. LAW FIRM OF GOLDMAN & VETTER; Big Creek Enterprises, Incorporated, an Illinois Corporation and James Elson; Midamerica National Bank, and Mr. David Hayes; Irving Evans; Garnet Evans, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 110
Pages: 332–333

Head Matter:
James KING; Linda King; Wendy King, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Stanley James Development Corporation, Plaintiff, v. LAW FIRM OF GOLDMAN & VETTER; Big Creek Enterprises, Incorporated, an Illinois Corporation and James Elson; Midamerica National Bank, and Mr. David Hayes; Irving Evans; Garnet Evans, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-1138.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 10, 2003.
Decided: Oct. 6, 2004.
William Ray Ford, Camp Springs, Maryland, for Appellants.
Gerard R. Vetter, Goldman & Vetter, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Law Firm of Goldman & Vetter; Irving Evans, Garnet Evans, Appellees pro se.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James King, Linda King, and Wendy King appeal the district court's order dismissing sua sponte their civil complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See King v. Law Firm of Goldman & Vetter, No. CA-02-2164-AMD (D.Md. Jan. 13, 2003). 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