Filed: Aug. 25, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1481 ADNAN HAIDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY; EDDIE MOORE, JR., in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as President of Virginia State Uni- versity; MARTHA DAWSON, in her individual ca- pacity and in her official capacity as Provost of Virginia State University; LORENZA W. LYONS, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Dean of the School of Agriculture, Scienc
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1481 ADNAN HAIDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY; EDDIE MOORE, JR., in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as President of Virginia State Uni- versity; MARTHA DAWSON, in her individual ca- pacity and in her official capacity as Provost of Virginia State University; LORENZA W. LYONS, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Dean of the School of Agriculture, Science..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1481 ADNAN HAIDER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY; EDDIE MOORE, JR., in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as President of Virginia State Uni- versity; MARTHA DAWSON, in her individual ca- pacity and in her official capacity as Provost of Virginia State University; LORENZA W. LYONS, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Dean of the School of Agriculture, Science and Technology of Vir- ginia State University; GEORGE W. WIMBUSH, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Chair of the Department of Mathe- matics of Virginia State University; EMMA SMITH, in her individual capacity and in her official capacity as a Member of the Faculty Development Committee of the Department of Mathematics of Virginia State University; KRISHNAN AGRAWAL, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as a Member of the Faculty Development Committee of the De- partment of Mathematics of Virginia State University; CECIL MORRIS, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as a Member of the Faculty Development Committee of the Department of Mathematics of Virginia State University; HADI MOADAB, in his individ- ual capacity and in his official capacity as a Member of the Faculty Development Committee of the Department of Mathematics of Virginia State University; JOCELYN HARRIS, in her indi- vidual capacity and in her official capacity as a Member of the Faculty Development Commit- tee of the Department of Mathematics of Vir- ginia State University; GERALD BURTON, in his individual capacity and in his official ca- pacity as a Member of the Faculty Development Committee of the Department of Mathematics of Virginia State University; V. S. BAHKSHI, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as a Member of the Faculty Devel- opment of Mathematics of Virginia State University, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-98-386-3) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 25, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Adnan Haider, Appellant Pro Se. Phyllis Carole Katz, Jerry Walter Kilgore, Lloyd Lee Byrd, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond, Virginia; Robert A. Dybing, James Dixon Phillips, Bradley Brent Cavedo, SHUFORD, RUBIN & GIBNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Adnan Haider appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 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. See Haider v. Virginia State University, No. CA-98-386-3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 8, 1999). 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