Schulte v. King ( 1998 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1333
BERNARD J. SCHULTE, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, and
derivatively on behalf of Oxford Tax Exempt
Fund Limited Partnership; GEORGE A. CRAIG, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
versus
OXFORD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; LEO E.
ZICKLER; OXFORD TAX EXEMPT FUND I CORPORATION;
OXFORD FUND II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; OXFORD
INVESTMENT CORPORATION; OXFORD INVESTMENT II
CORPORATION; OXFORD EQUITIES CORPORATION;
OXFORD TAX EXEMPT FUND II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;
OXFORD TAX EXEMPT FUND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;
OXFORD TAX EXEMPT FUND II CORPORATION, a
Maryland Corporation; OXFORD REALTY FINANCIAL
GROUP, INCORPORATED, a Maryland Corporation;
OXFORD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Maryland
Corporation; OXFORD BETHESDA II LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Maryland limited partnership,
Defendants - Appellees,
versus
JOAN KING, Individually and as state class
representative,
Movant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
(CA-95-3643-WMN)
Submitted: February 10, 1998 Decided: February 24, 1998
Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joan King, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Juster Piven, LAW OFFICE OF
CHARLES J. PIVEN, Baltimore, Maryland; Kenneth George Gilman, David
Pastor, GILMAN & PASTOR, Boston, Massachusetts; Daniel Charles
Girard, GIRARD & GREEN, P.C., San Francisco, California; Andrew
Bennett Weissman, Robert Franklin Hoyt, Robert Bruce McCaw, WILMER,
CUTLER & PICKERING, Washington, D.C.; Charles Jay Landy, SHAW,
PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order approving the
settlement agreement in this securities fraud class action suit. We
have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. Schulte v. King, No. CA-95-3643-WMN (D. Md. Feb.
23, 1997); see In re Jiffy Lube Securities Litig., 927 F.2d 155(4th Cir. 1991); Flinn v. FMC Corp., 528 F.2d 1169 (4th Cir. 1975).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3