Unpublished Dispositionbank of East Tennessee, Plaintiff/appellee, v. George R. Pankey, Jerry and Lynn Levinson, Robert Fithian,defendants/appellants,andpaul R. Gramlich, et Al, Plaintiffs/appellants, v. Lloyd Swift, et al., Defendants,bank of East Tennessee, Defendant/appellee, 931 F.2d 56 (6th Cir. 1991)

In these consolidated appeals,¹  plaintiffs George Pankey and Robert Fithian²  appeal the district court's grant of directed verdicts in favor of the Bank of East Tennessee on claims for federal and state securities fraud, RICO violations, consumer fraud under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, common law fraud, contract, fiduciary duty, and as to the promissory notes of Pankey, Levinson and Fithian. Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in granting directed verdicts in favor of the Bank of East Tennessee on all the issues. Having reviewed the record on appeal, and the briefs of the parties to the extent that the evidence discussed in those briefs was properly admitted in the record, we conclude that the district court's rulings were not in error.

Because the reasons articulated by the district court on the record on December 7, 1989,³  adequately resolve the issues raised in this appeal, the issuance of a written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED for the reasons set forth in the district court's order of December 7, 1989.