Filed: Nov. 01, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1666 ROSARIO A. FIORANI, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES A. METCALF, JR.; FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-00-619-A) Submitted: October 20, 2000 Decided: November 1, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1666 ROSARIO A. FIORANI, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES A. METCALF, JR.; FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-00-619-A) Submitted: October 20, 2000 Decided: November 1, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1666 ROSARIO A. FIORANI, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES A. METCALF, JR.; FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-00-619-A) Submitted: October 20, 2000 Decided: November 1, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Harold O. Miller, Sarasota, Florida; Bryan Michael Haynes, SOUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Rosario A. Fiorani, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to remand and dismissing his action. 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 Fiorani v. Metcalf, No. CA-00-619-A (E.D. Va. May 15, 2000). 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
