Kanazeh v. Mann

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 17, 2001
• Docket: 01-1311
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1311

AFAF KANAZEH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL K. MANN; PANTONG MANN; LAUREN SHEA; KENNETH CROSSON; ARLENE L. PRIPETON,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION,

Defendant.

No. 01-1354

MICHAEL K. MANN; PANTONG MANN; LAUREN SHEA; KENNETH CROSSON; ARLENE L. PRIPETON,

Defendants - Appellees, and

No. 01-1521

MICHAEL K. MANN; PANTONG MANN; LAUREN SHEA; KENNETH CROSSON; ARLENE L. PRIPETON,

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-00-2126-A)

Submitted: October 4, 2001 Decided: October 17, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

2 Afaf Kanazeh, Appellant Pro Se. Randell Charles Ogg, SHERMAN, MEEHAN & CURTIN, P.C., Washington, D.C.; Carol Thomas Stone, JORDAN, COYNE & SAVITS, Fairfax, Virginia; Joseph Francis Cunningham, CUNNINGHAM & ASSOCIATES, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Afaf Kanazeh appeals from the district court’s orders dis-

missing her eight motions as frivolous and enjoining her from

filing any more pro se lawsuits against defendants. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Kanazeh v. Mann, No. CA-00-2126-A (E.D. Va. filed

Feb. 9, entered Feb. 15; filed Mar. 2, entered Mar. 8; filed Apr.

12, entered Apr. 19, 2001). We deny Kanazeh’s motion for relief.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-

tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED