# Salame Amr v. Eddie Moore, Jr.

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · March 19, 2012

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/625654

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 19, 2012
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/625654

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2196

SALAME M. AMR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

EDDIE N. MOORE, JR.; LARRY C. BROWN; KEITH M. WILLIAMSON;
NASSER RASHIDI; GERALD BURTON; DONNA CRAWFORD; GLORIA YOUNG;
ALI MOHAMED; OLIVER W. HILL, JR.; WONDI MERSIE; ANDREW KANU;
STEPHAN WILDEUS; SHARON EVANS; AMERICAN SOCIETY OF
ENGINEERING EDUCATION; AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR UNIVERSITY
PROFESSORS; VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF VISITORS,
THE,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:09-cv-00667-REP)

Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 19, 2012

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Salame M. Amr, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory Clayton Fleming,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Robert R.
Musick, THOMPSON MCMULLAN, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Jeremy David
Capps, HARMAN, CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2
PER CURIAM:

Salame M. Amr appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave

to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the

reasons stated by the district court. Amr v. Moore, No. 3:09-

cv-00667-REP (E.D. Va. Sept. 26, 2011). Amr’s pending motion to

stay is denied as moot. 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.

DISMISSED

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/625654. Public record. Not legal advice.