michael-c-benko-v-linda-k-benko-andrew-m-vanderhoof-peter-j-kane-j , 981 F.2d 1250 ( 1992 )

981 F.2d 1250

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Michael C. BENKO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Linda K. BENKO; Andrew M. Vanderhoof; Peter J. Kane; J.
Edward McGolrick; Security Bank Corporation, and former
Bank President; Commonwealth Savings Bank; Progressive
Housing Service Corporation; Estate of J. Roger Cornellier;
Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, a Maryland
Corporation; John D. Hoagland; Thomas G. Underwood; R. F.
Wood, Vice President Loss Prevention Nations Bank; Cub Run
Associates, Incorporated, c/o Bruce A. Gross and c/o M.
Therese Cornellier; J. William Garry, Jr., Trustee;
Stonewall Title and Escrow, Incorporated; John Grzejka,
Councilman, Chairman Economic Development Committee,
Manassas City Hall; Maury Gerson, Councilman, Chairman
Budget and Finance Committee, Manassas City Hall; Don
Fullem, Fire Marshall; Leonard Kowalski, Prince William
Detective; Wright Realty, Incorporated; Claude T. Compton;
Manassas City Council; Michael D. Lubeley; Daniel J.
Morissete; J. F. Cattell Association, on behalf of Royal
Insurance Company; R. Jackson Ratcliffe Insurance Agency,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-2236.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 30, 1992
Decided: December 15, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-92-1300-A)

Michael C. Benko, Appellant Pro Se.

Jack L. Gould, Fairfax, Virginia; Claude T. Compton, Manassas, Virginia; William Andrew Fogarty, Walsh, Colucci, Stackhouse, Emrich & Lubeley, P.C., Arlington, Virginia, for Appellees.

E.D.Va.

Affirmed.

Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1

Michael C. Benko appeals from the district court's order dismissing his complaint for lack of diversity jurisdiction because Benko and one or more of the Defendants are both residents of Virginia. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Benko v. Benko, No. CA-92-1300-A (E.D. Va. Sept. 24, 1992). 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