Filed: Apr. 29, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2271 ZEENIA S. SATTI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:08-cv-01008-LMB-IDD) Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: April 29, 2009 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. * Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zeenia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2271 ZEENIA S. SATTI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:08-cv-01008-LMB-IDD) Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: April 29, 2009 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. * Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zeenia ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2271 ZEENIA S. SATTI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:08-cv-01008-LMB-IDD) Submitted: April 23, 2009 Decided: April 29, 2009 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. * Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zeenia Satti, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. * The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). PER CURIAM: Zeenia Satti appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action with prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Satti v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 1:08-cv-01008-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va. Oct. 7, 2008). 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
