Caine Mitter & Associates, Incorporated v. George H. Lane, Iii

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2450
CAINE MITTER & ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GEORGE H. LANE, III; REALTY MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION; REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION;
ROSWELL ROAD ASSOCIATES, LTD; FRANKLIN WALK
ASSOCIATES, L.P.; LANE REAL ESTATE SERVICES,
INCORPORATED; LANE REALTY ADVISORS,
INCORPORATED; LANE REALTY, INCORPORATED;
REALTY MARKETING CORPORATION; REALTY BROKERAGE
CORPORATION; HAMPTON HILLS BONDHOLDER, LLC;
LANE COMPANY NEW YORK, LTD,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA-
03-647-8RDB)
Argued: September 19, 2005 Decided: November 16, 2005
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and R. Bryan HARWELL,
United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina,
sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Claudia Callaway, PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER,
Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Cassandra Pauline Hicks, HICKS
& WEINTRAUB, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Sabrina

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Rose Smith, PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER, Washington, D.C.,
for Appellants. Jeffrey S. Weintraub, HICKS & WEINTRAUB,
Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
George H. Lane, III; Realty Management Corporation; Realty
Development Corporation; Roswell Road Associates, Ltd; Franklin
Walk Associates, L.P.; Lane Real Estate Services, Incorporated;
Lane Realty Advisors, Incorporated; Lane Realty, Incorporated;
Realty Marketing Corporation; Realty Brokerage Corporation; Hampton
Hills Bondholder, LLC; and Lane Company New York, Ltd appeal the
district court’s order granting summary judgment to plaintiff in
this action alleging breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust
enrichment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Caine Mitter & Assoc. v. Lane, et al., No. CA-
03-647-8RDB (D. Md. August 2, 2004).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --