Amr v. Virginia State University

Fourth Circuit

Amr v. Virginia State University

469 F. App'x 208

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 19, 2012

DocketNo. 11-2051

StatusPublished

This text of 469 F. App'x 208 (Amr v. Virginia State University) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amr v. Virginia State University, 469 F. App'x 208 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Salame M. Amr appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint with prejudice and granting the Defendants’ motions for sanctions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Amr v. Virginia State Univ., No. 3:10-cv-00787-REP-MHL, 2011 WL 4407429 (E.D.Va. Sept. 21, 2011). Amr’s pending motion to hold appeal in abeyance is denied as moot. 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.

DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Salame M. Amr appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint with prejudice and granting the Defendants’ motions for sanctions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Amr v. Virginia State Univ., No. 3:10-cv-00787-REP-MHL, 2011 WL 4407429 (E.D.Va. Sept. 21, 2011). Amr’s pending motion to hold appeal in abeyance is denied as moot. 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.

DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

469 F. App'x 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amr-v-virginia-state-university-ca4-2012.