Joseph Angelo Gricco v. Carver Boat Corporation, LLC

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1988
JOSEPH ANGELO GRICCO; BARBARA ANN GRICCO,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
CARVER BOAT CORPORATION, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:04-
cv-01854-JFM)
Submitted: April 25, 2007 Decided: May 25, 2007
Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Stephen Simms, SIMMS SHOWERS, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellants. Jeffrey D. Smith, Kathryn D. Soulier, VARNUM,
RIDDERING, SCHMIDT & HOWLETT, LLP, Kalamazoo, Michigan, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

*The Appellants initially alleged four causes of action, and
the district court granted their motion to amend the complaint to
allege three additional claims. The parties filed cross-motions
for summary judgment on the first four claims; by memorandum
opinion and order, the district court granted the Appellee’s motion
and denied the Appellants’ motion. The parties also filed cross-
motions for summary judgment on the final three claims; after a
hearing, the district court orally granted the Appellee’s motion
and denied the Appellants’ motion. The district court entered
judgment for the Appellee. On appeal, the Appellants challenge the
district court’s rulings on two of the seven claims: negligent
misrepresentation and a violation of the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Joseph and Barbara Gricco appeal the district court’s
orders granting summary judgment in favor of Carver Boat
Corporation, LLC (“Carver”) on claims brought under applicable
Maryland law. * Summary judgment is appropriate only if, viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,
there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Evans v.
Technologies Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 958 (4th Cir.
1996).
After thoroughly reviewing the parties’ briefs and the joint
appendix, including the transcript of the summary judgment hearing,
we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. See Gricco v. Carver Boat
Corp., LLC, No. 1:04-cv-01854-JFM (D. Md. Dec. 15, 2005 and Aug. 9,
2006). We grant the consent motion to submit the case on briefs

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
and 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

-- 3 of 3 --