Filed: Jan. 23, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2244 RAMACHANDRAN VARADARAJAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUAN ANTONIO SAMARANCH; RICHARD PONND; JAMES EASTON; ANITA MENEIDE; ETIENNE GLIECHITEN; LEROY T. WALKER; WILLIAM PAYNE; ELS VAN BREDA RRIESMAN; RANA VALAQUAZ; PETER PORRITT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-96-1066-A) Submitted: Decemb
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2244 RAMACHANDRAN VARADARAJAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUAN ANTONIO SAMARANCH; RICHARD PONND; JAMES EASTON; ANITA MENEIDE; ETIENNE GLIECHITEN; LEROY T. WALKER; WILLIAM PAYNE; ELS VAN BREDA RRIESMAN; RANA VALAQUAZ; PETER PORRITT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-96-1066-A) Submitted: Decembe..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2244 RAMACHANDRAN VARADARAJAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUAN ANTONIO SAMARANCH; RICHARD PONND; JAMES EASTON; ANITA MENEIDE; ETIENNE GLIECHITEN; LEROY T. WALKER; WILLIAM PAYNE; ELS VAN BREDA RRIESMAN; RANA VALAQUAZ; PETER PORRITT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-96-1066-A) Submitted: December 31, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1997 Before HALL, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ramachandran Varadarajan, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his action alleging libel, slander, attempted murder, illegal immigra- tion practices, and harassment. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Varadarajan v. Samaranch, No. CA-96-1066-A (E.D. Va. Aug. 7, 1996). We deny Appel- lant's Motion for Order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2