Lorenzo W. Tijerina v. Ted Kavrukov, Attorney-At-Law William D. Patkus, Attorney-At-Law

Fourth Circuit

Lorenzo W. Tijerina v. Ted Kavrukov, Attorney-At-Law William D. Patkus, Attorney-At-Law

59 F.3d 167, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23476, 1995 WL 371011

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 20, 1995

Docket95-1076

StatusPublished

This text of 59 F.3d 167 (Lorenzo W. Tijerina v. Ted Kavrukov, Attorney-At-Law William D. Patkus, Attorney-At-Law) 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

Lorenzo W. Tijerina v. Ted Kavrukov, Attorney-At-Law William D. Patkus, Attorney-At-Law, 59 F.3d 167, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23476, 1995 WL 371011 (4th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

59 F.3d 167
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Lorenzo W. TIJERINA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Ted KAVRUKOV, Attorney-At-Law; William D. Patkus,
Attorney-At-Law, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-1076.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 18, 1995.
Decided June 20, 1995.

Lorenzo W. Tijerina, Appellant Pro Se. Ted Kavrukov, Arlington, Virginia; William D. Patkus, Fairfax Station, VA, Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing this action and the order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship: Appellant is a resident of Maryland; both Appellees are Virginia residents. The cause of action* arose in Virginia during a trial on May 29 and 30, 1991. Appellant filed his Complaint on May 31, 1994, outside Virginia's two-year statute of limitations. See Va.Code Ann. Sec. 8.01-243 (Michie 1994). Following a hearing, the district court determined that the action was time-barred.

We have reviewed the record and the district court's orders and find no reversible error. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the district court. 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.

*

Appellant alleged false statement, abuse of legal process, legal malpractice, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and four related conspiracies

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

59 F.3d 167
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Lorenzo W. TIJERINA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Ted KAVRUKOV, Attorney-At-Law; William D. Patkus,
Attorney-At-Law, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-1076.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 18, 1995.
Decided June 20, 1995.

Lorenzo W. Tijerina, Appellant Pro Se. Ted Kavrukov, Arlington, Virginia; William D. Patkus, Fairfax Station, VA, Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing this action and the order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship: Appellant is a resident of Maryland; both Appellees are Virginia residents. The cause of action* arose in Virginia during a trial on May 29 and 30, 1991. Appellant filed his Complaint on May 31, 1994, outside Virginia's two-year statute of limitations. See Va.Code Ann. Sec. 8.01-243 (Michie 1994). Following a hearing, the district court determined that the action was time-barred.

We have reviewed the record and the district court's orders and find no reversible error. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the district court. 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.

*

Appellant alleged false statement, abuse of legal process, legal malpractice, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and four related conspiracies

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 F.3d 167, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23476, 1995 WL 371011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lorenzo-w-tijerina-v-ted-kavrukov-attorney-at-law--ca4-1995.