Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hoai Thanh v. Hien Ngo, 16-1391 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-1391 Visitors: 18
Filed: Apr. 06, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1391 HOAI THANH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HIEN T. NGO, Defendant - Appellee. No. 16-1397 HOAI THANH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HIEN T. NGO, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:11-cv-01992-PJM; 8:15-cv-03441-PJM) Submitted: February 24, 2017 Decided: April 6, 2017 Before AGEE, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1391 HOAI THANH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HIEN T. NGO, Defendant - Appellee. No. 16-1397 HOAI THANH, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HIEN T. NGO, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:11-cv-01992-PJM; 8:15-cv-03441-PJM) Submitted: February 24, 2017 Decided: April 6, 2017 Before AGEE, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Laurence A. Elgin, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Joseph Daniel Gallagher, GILL, SIPPEL & GALLAGHER, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Hoai Thanh appeals the district court’s orders: (1) denying his motions to reconsider a prior order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant in the underlying defamation action, and (2) denying his motions to reconsider the dismissal of his independent complaint asserting fraud upon the court, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d). We have reviewed the record included on appeal, as well as the district court’s opinions, and have found no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hoai Thanh v. Hien Ngo, Nos. 8:11-cv-01992-PJM; 8:15-cv-03441-PJM (D. Md. Feb. 5, 2016; May 17, 2016). 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 3
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