Chaudhary v. Stevens

Fourth Circuit

Chaudhary v. Stevens

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 24, 2006

Docket05-2123

StatusUnpublished

This text of Chaudhary v. Stevens (Chaudhary v. Stevens) 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

Chaudhary v. Stevens, (4th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-2123

NAZIR CHAUDHARY; DOGWOOD REALTY, INCORPORATED,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

CAROLYNNE H. STEVENS, Individually and in her official capacity; ANGELA ROGERS-REAVES, Individually and in her official capacity; DENYCE BONAPARTE, Individually and in her official capacity; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-05-382-3)

Submitted: April 26, 2006 Decided: May 24, 2006

Before LUTTIG* and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas H. Roberts, THOMAS H. ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Judith Williams Jagdmann, Attorney

* Judge Luttig was a member of the original panel but did not participate in this decision. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). General of Virginia, William E. Thro, State Solicitor General, David E. Johnson, Deputy Attorney General, Kim F. Piner, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Allen T. Wilson, Special Counsel, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - 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

- 3 -

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