Filed: Oct. 13, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1887 MAROKH KAMKAR-PARSI, Plaintiff, A. MASOUD GOHARI, Defendant - Appellant, versus ALAN ROSS, Defendant - Appellee, and EARLY RETIREMENT ACCOUNT OF UPTOWN WOMEN’S CLINIC, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-296-AW) Submitted: October 7, 2004 Decided: October 13, 2004 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1887 MAROKH KAMKAR-PARSI, Plaintiff, A. MASOUD GOHARI, Defendant - Appellant, versus ALAN ROSS, Defendant - Appellee, and EARLY RETIREMENT ACCOUNT OF UPTOWN WOMEN’S CLINIC, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-296-AW) Submitted: October 7, 2004 Decided: October 13, 2004 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circui..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1887 MAROKH KAMKAR-PARSI, Plaintiff, A. MASOUD GOHARI, Defendant - Appellant, versus ALAN ROSS, Defendant - Appellee, and EARLY RETIREMENT ACCOUNT OF UPTOWN WOMEN’S CLINIC, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-296-AW) Submitted: October 7, 2004 Decided: October 13, 2004 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John G. Gill, Jr., GILL & SIPPEL, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Alan Ross, Appellee Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: A. Masoud Gohari appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for attorney’s fees. We have reviewed the record and find the court did not abuse its discretion in not granting the motion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Parsi v. Gohari, No. CA-02-296-AW (D. Md. June 30, 2004). 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 -
