Chaudhary v. Stevens

182 F. App'x 204
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided May 24, 2006·No. No. 05-2123·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Nazir Chaudhary and Dogwood Realty appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying their motion to remand and granting defendants’ motion to dismiss. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Chaudhary v. Stevens, No. CA-05-382-3 (E.D.Va. Sept. 7, 2005). 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

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

Chaudhary v. Stevens, 182 F. App'x 204 (4th Cir. 2006).

182 F. App'x 204 (Chaudhary v. Stevens) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hyland v. Raytheon Technical Services Co.
75 Va. Cir. 497 (Fairfax County Circuit Court, 2007)