Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gaber v. Henderson, 08-1723 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-1723 Visitors: 29
Filed: Mar. 19, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1723 SAMI GABER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KRISTIN HENDERSON, Special Agent, Office of the Inspector General; MICHAEL SPOLIDORO, Special Agent, Office of the Inspector General; MICHAEL KEARNEY, Station Manager, United States Postal Service, Defendants – Appellees, and JOHN E. POTTER, United States Postmaster General, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1723 SAMI GABER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KRISTIN HENDERSON, Special Agent, Office of the Inspector General; MICHAEL SPOLIDORO, Special Agent, Office of the Inspector General; MICHAEL KEARNEY, Station Manager, United States Postal Service, Defendants – Appellees, and JOHN E. POTTER, United States Postmaster General, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00076-JCC-TCB) Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 19, 2009 Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dean E. Wanderer, DEAN E. WANDERER & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, R. Joseph Sher, Catherine D. Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Sami Gaber appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Gaber v. Henderson, No. 1:08-cv-00076-JCC-TCB (E.D. Va. filed June 2, 2008; entered June 3, 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 3
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