Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Fiorani v. Lowry, 08-1467 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-1467 Visitors: 22
Filed: Aug. 07, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1467 ROSARIO A. FIORANI, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ALBERT LOWRY; EDUCATION ADVANCEMENT INSTITUTE; ENTREPRENEURIAL SERVICES; ADAM LEVINE; SETH CHARLES BERENZWEIG; SARAH ZAFINNA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00348-LMB-BRP) Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 7, 2008 Before NIEMEYE
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1467 ROSARIO A. FIORANI, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ALBERT LOWRY; EDUCATION ADVANCEMENT INSTITUTE; ENTREPRENEURIAL SERVICES; ADAM LEVINE; SETH CHARLES BERENZWEIG; SARAH ZAFINNA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00348-LMB-BRP) Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 7, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his “Petition and Motion for Restraining Order and Order to Vacate Unconstitutional Circuit Court’s Order on Violations of Plaintiff’s Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,” and his “Extraordinary Complaint and Motion for Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 on Constitutional and Civil Rights Violations,” and dismissing without prejudice his “Notice of Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Fiorani v. Lowry, No. 1:08-cv-00348-LMB-BRP (E.D. Va. Apr. 21, 2008). 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 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer