The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
06-1486•Bizmark, Incorporated v. Air Products, Incorporated
06-1486Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitDec 29, 2006
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1486
BIZMARK, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
AIR PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. Glen M. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (2:04-cv-00109-GMW)
Submitted: December 11, 2006 Decided: December 29, 2006
Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joe H. Roberts, JOE H. ROBERTS, P.C., Wise, Virginia, for
Appellant. J. Scott Sexton, Monica Taylor Monday, Ryan C. Berry,
GENTRY, LOCKE, RAKES & MOORE, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Bizmark, Incorporated appeals the district court’s
judgment and order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and granting summary judgment to Air Products, Incorporated.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate
judge and adopted by the district court. See Bizmark, Inc. v. Air
Products, Inc., 427 F. Supp. 680 (W.D. Va. 2006). 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.