Filed: Feb. 17, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2508 JAMSHID FARSHIDI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORFOLK STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-56-2) Submitted: February 7, 2005 Decided: February 17, 2005 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamshid Farshidi, App
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2508 JAMSHID FARSHIDI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORFOLK STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-56-2) Submitted: February 7, 2005 Decided: February 17, 2005 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamshid Farshidi, Appe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2508 JAMSHID FARSHIDI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORFOLK STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-56-2) Submitted: February 7, 2005 Decided: February 17, 2005 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamshid Farshidi, Appellant Pro Se. Martha Murphey Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Patrick B. Kelly, NORFOLK STATE UNIVERSITY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Dr. Jamshid Farshidi appeals the district court’s order awarding $5000 in attorney’s fees to Defendant, the prevailing party in this Title VII action. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Farshidi v. Norfolk State Univ., No. CA-03-56- 2 (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 15, 2004; entered Nov. 16, 2004). 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 - 2 -