Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Alex Rahmi v. Sovereign Bank, 13-2040 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-2040 Visitors: 34
Filed: Mar. 31, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2040 ALEX D. RAHMI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOVEREIGN BANK, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:12-cv-00087-GMG-DJJ) Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: March 31, 2014 Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alex Rahmi, App
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2040 ALEX D. RAHMI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOVEREIGN BANK, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:12-cv-00087-GMG-DJJ) Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: March 31, 2014 Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alex Rahmi, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Kenneth Robertson, JACKSON KELLY, PLLC, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alex Rahmi appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for appointment of counsel and for a hearing on the order to show cause issued by the district court following the denial of Rahmi’s third motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Rahmi v. Sovereign Bank, No. 3:12-cv-00087-GMG-DJJ (N.D.W. Va. July 22, 2013). 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer