Filed: Feb. 26, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1043 HAMID R. MAHJOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES D. PETERSON, Deputy Commonwealth Attorney, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:12-cv-01461-LMB-JFA) Submitted: February 21, 2013 Decided: February 26, 2013 Before AGEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpubli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1043 HAMID R. MAHJOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES D. PETERSON, Deputy Commonwealth Attorney, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:12-cv-01461-LMB-JFA) Submitted: February 21, 2013 Decided: February 26, 2013 Before AGEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublis..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1043 HAMID R. MAHJOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES D. PETERSON, Deputy Commonwealth Attorney, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:12-cv-01461-LMB-JFA) Submitted: February 21, 2013 Decided: February 26, 2013 Before AGEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hamid R. Mahjor, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Hamid R. Mahjor appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice his civil complaint against Deputy Commonwealth Attorney James D. Peterson. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Mahjor v. Peterson, No. 1:12-cv-01461-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va. Dec. 27, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
