Kamkar-Parsi v. Ross

Fourth Circuit

Kamkar-Parsi v. Ross

110 F. App'x 352

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 13, 2004·No. No. 04-1887·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

A. Masoud Gohari appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for attorney’s fees. We have reviewed the record and find the court did not abuse its discretion in not granting the motion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Parsi v. Gohari, No. CA-02-296-AW (D. Md. June 30, 2004). 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

PER CURIAM:

A. Masoud Gohari appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for attorney’s fees. We have reviewed the record and find the court did not abuse its discretion in not granting the motion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Parsi v. Gohari, No. CA-02-296-AW (D. Md. June 30, 2004). 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

Kamkar-Parsi v. Ross, 110 F. App'x 352 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

110 F. App'x 352 (Kamkar-Parsi v. Ross) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.