Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States ex rel. Alex Abou-Hussein v. Science Applications International, 12-1701 (2012)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-1701 Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1701 UNITED STATES EX REL. ALEX ABOU-HUSSEIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; SENTEK CONSULTING, Defendants – Appellees, and EAGAN MCALLISTER ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED; SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE SYSTEMS COMMAND, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:09-cv-01858-RMG) Submitted:
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1701 UNITED STATES EX REL. ALEX ABOU-HUSSEIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; SENTEK CONSULTING, Defendants – Appellees, and EAGAN MCALLISTER ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED; SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE SYSTEMS COMMAND, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:09-cv-01858-RMG) Submitted: August 21, 2012 Decided: August 23, 2012 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alex Abou-Hussein, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Kinney Helvin, Michael L. Waldman, ROBBINS, RUSSELL, ENGLERT, ORSECK, UNTEREINER & SAUBER, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Gary K. Brucker, Jr., Christian D. Humphreys, MCKENNA LONG AND ALDRIDGE, San Diego, California, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Alex Abou-Hussein appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Abou-Hussein v. Science Applications Int’l Corp., No. 2:09-cv-01858-RMG (D.S.C. May 3, 2012). 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