UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1956
DWAYNE MAYNARD; TAJUANA MAYNARD,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
WESTPORT INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff - Appellee,
and
BRIDGETTE HARRIS-SMITH; SMITH & JEFFERSON,
LLC,
Third Party Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
01-232-DKC)
Submitted: January 23, 2003 Decided: February 10, 2003
Before WIDENER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stewart A. Sutton, LAW OFFICE OF STEWART A. SUTTON, L.L.C.,
Germantown, Maryland, for Appellants. Bryan G. Schumann, R. J.,
Smyk, BOLLINGER, RUBERRY & GARVEY, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Dwayne and Tajuana Maynard appeal from the district court’s
order denying their motion for summary judgment, granting Westport
Insurance Corporation’s cross motion for summary judgment, and
declaring that Westport is not obligated to indemnify their former
counsel, Bridgette Harris-Smith, for a $272,000 default judgment
entered against her in favor of the Maynards for her legal
malpractice in a bankruptcy proceeding.
This Court reviews de novo a district court’s order granting
summary judgment and views the facts in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party. Scheduled Airlines Traffic Offices, Inc. v.
Objective, Inc., 180 F.3d 583, 590-91 (4th Cir. 1999). Summary
judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact
exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We conclude that the district court
properly granted summary judgment and declaratory relief for the
reason stated in its comprehensive opinion and orders and affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. See Maynard v.
Westport Ins. Corp., No. CA-01-232-DKC (D. Md. July 3 and Aug. 15,
2002).
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
3