Charles J. Jeffries, a resident of Durham County, North Carolina v. the Aetna Casualty

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-2310
CHARLES J. JEFFRIES, a resident of Durham
County, North Carolina; JANA L. CAMALIER,
Administratrix, individually and as Adminis-
tratrix CTA of the Estate of Caleb Willard
Camalier, III,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
THE AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, a
corporation incorporated in the State of Con-
necticut; TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COM-
PANY, a corporation incorporated in the State
of Connecticut,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.
(CA-98-608-5-F)
Submitted: March 28, 2000 Decided: April 12, 2000
Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
David M. Duke, Tina M. Lloyd, YOUNG, MOORE & HENDERSON, P.A.,
Raleigh, North Carolina; Gary S. Parsons, Patricia P. Kerner,
BAILEY & DIXON, L.L.P., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants.
Richard T. Rice, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE, & RICE, P.L.L.C.,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Mark A. Davis, WOMBLE, CARLYLE,
SANDRIDGE & RICE, P.L.L.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
The Appellants, Charles J. Jeffries and Jana L. Camalier, ap-
peal the district court’s order granting summary judgment for The
Aetna Casualty and Surety Company and Travelers Casualty and Surety
Company in the Appellants’ action seeking a declaration of coverage
under an insurance policy. We have reviewed the record and the
district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. According-
ly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jeffries
v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., No. CA-98-608-5-F (E.D.N.C. Aug.
25, 1999). 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 --