From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Froelich v. Lewis Law Firm

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jun 12, 2009
326 F. App'x 191 (4th Cir. 2009)

Opinion

No. 08-1745.

Submitted: January 30, 2009.

Decided: June 12, 2009.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-01230-CMH-BRP).

E. Duncan Getchell, Jr., Erin M. Sine, McGuirewoods, LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Theodore S. Allison, Karr Allison PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Mark H. Tuohey, III, David E. Hawkins, J. Randall Warden, Vinson Elkins LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


Francis Edwin Froelich appeals from the district court's order dismissing his amended complaint against The Lewis Law Firm and Glenn C. Lewis, finding that the claims asserted in the complaint were barred by an earlier state court decision addressing the same claims. We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by the parties and find no reversible error. Andrews v. Daw, 201 F.3d 521, 524 (4th Cir. 2000) (providing standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Froelich v. The Lewis Law Firm, PC, No. 1:07-cv-01230-CMH-BRP (E.D. Va. filed June 3, 2008; entered June 5, 2008). 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.


Summaries of

Froelich v. Lewis Law Firm

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jun 12, 2009
326 F. App'x 191 (4th Cir. 2009)
Case details for

Froelich v. Lewis Law Firm

Case Details

Full title:Francis Edwin FROELICH, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The LEWIS…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Jun 12, 2009

Citations

326 F. App'x 191 (4th Cir. 2009)