Opinion

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

251 F. App'x 830

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed: Oct 28, 2007
Status: Published
On the bench: Motz, Traxler, Wilkinson
Cited by: 0 cases

The 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 sanctions. 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.

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.