Malhotra v. Watergate at Landmark (WAL) Condominium Ass'n

Fourth Circuit

Malhotra v. Watergate at Landmark (WAL) Condominium Ass'n

251 F. App'x 830

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 28, 2007·No. No. 07-1501·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Sanjeev Malhotra appeals the district court’s order’s denying his motions to reopen and for sanctions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Malhotra v. Watergate at Landmark Condo. Assoc., No. 1:05-cv-00076-LMB (E.D. Va. Apr. 4 & 6, 2007). We deny Appellee’s motion for [831]*831sanctions. 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:

Sanjeev Malhotra appeals the district court’s order’s denying his motions to reopen and for sanctions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Malhotra v. Watergate at Landmark Condo. Assoc., No. 1:05-cv-00076-LMB (E.D. Va. Apr. 4 & 6, 2007). We deny Appellee’s motion for [831]*831sanctions. 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.

Malhotra v. Watergate at Landmark (WAL) Condominium Ass'n, 251 F. App'x 830 (4th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

251 F. App'x 830 (Malhotra v. Watergate at Landmark (WAL) Condominium Ass'n) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.