Filed: Apr. 17, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1775 MONUMENTAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH ZIADEH, Defendant - Appellant, and BELL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-936) Submitted: March 31, 2006 Decided: April 17, 2006 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1775 MONUMENTAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH ZIADEH, Defendant - Appellant, and BELL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-936) Submitted: March 31, 2006 Decided: April 17, 2006 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed b..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1775 MONUMENTAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOSEPH ZIADEH, Defendant - Appellant, and BELL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-936) Submitted: March 31, 2006 Decided: April 17, 2006 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Ziadeh, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Francis Carney, William Patrick Pearce, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Joseph Ziadeh appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his “Affidavit and Complaint.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Monumental Inv. Corp. v. Bell Constr. Co., No. CA-96-936 (E.D. Va. June 29, 2005). 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 - 3 -
