ADAMS v. BROOKS, 283 Fed.Appx. 162 (4th Cir. 2008)

Lester A.D. ADAMS; Maribel F. Murray, Plaintiffs — Appellants, v. Christopher A. BROOKS, Defendant — Appellee.

No. 08-1177.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: June 26, 2008.
Decided: June 30, 2008.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:05-cv-03332-DKC).

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.

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


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, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (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

Page 163

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.