Adams v. Brooks , 283 F. App'x 162 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-1177
    LESTER A.D. ADAMS; MARIBEL F. MURRAY,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    v.
    CHRISTOPHER A. BROOKS,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.    Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
    (8:05-cv-03332-DKC)
    Submitted:   June 26, 2008                 Decided:   June 30, 2008
    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lester A.D. Adams and Maribel F. Murray, Appellants Pro Se.
    Johnathan Azrael, Towson, Maryland, John R. Solter, Jr., AZAREL,
    GANN & FRANZ, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellants Lester A.D. Adams and Maribel F. Murray appeal
    the district court’s judgment dismissing their civil action filed
    to   quiet   title   to   certain   residential   real   property   and   for
    specific performance of a purchase option as to the property.
    After a bench trial, this court reviews the district court’s
    conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact for clear
    error.   Minyard Enter., Inc. v. Southeastern Chem. & Solvent Co.,
    
    184 F.3d 373
    , 380 (4th Cir. 1999); Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a).                  A
    finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, “although there is
    evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence
    is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
    been committed.”      United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 
    333 U.S. 364
    , 395 (1948); In re Green, 
    934 F.2d 568
    , 570 (4th Cir.
    1991).
    We have reviewed the parties’ informal briefs and the
    record and find no reversible error.         Accordingly, we affirm for
    the reasons stated by the district court.         See Adams v. Brooks, No.
    8:05-cv-03332-DKC (D. Md. July 25, 2007; Jan. 2, 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
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-1177

Citation Numbers: 283 F. App'x 162

Judges: King, Duncan, Wilkins

Filed Date: 6/30/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024