Opinion

Salame Amr v. Virginia State University

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Mar 19, 2012
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2051

SALAME M. AMR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY “VSU”; VSU’s Board of Visitors;

EDDIE N. MOORE, JR.; W. ERIC THOMAS; PAMELA LEIGH-MACK;

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,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:10-cv-00787-REP-MHL)

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Ronald Nicholas Regnery,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia;

Robert R. Musick, THOMPSON MCMULLAN, PC, Richmond, Virginia;

Margaret Sander, REED SMITH, LLP, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 orders

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing his complaint with prejudice and granting the

Defendants’ motions for sanctions. 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. Virginia State Univ., No.

3:10-cv-00787-REP-MHL (E.D. Va. Sept. 21, 2011). Amr’s pending

motion to hold appeal in abeyance 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

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.