Filed: Jul. 24, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1001 RICHARD POLIDI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR; JOHN DOES 1-5; JANE DOES 1-5, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-01322-TSE-IDD) Submitted: July 20, 2017 Decided: July 24, 2017 Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1001 RICHARD POLIDI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR; JOHN DOES 1-5; JANE DOES 1-5, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-01322-TSE-IDD) Submitted: July 20, 2017 Decided: July 24, 2017 Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1001 RICHARD POLIDI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR; JOHN DOES 1-5; JANE DOES 1-5, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-01322-TSE-IDD) Submitted: July 20, 2017 Decided: July 24, 2017 Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Polidi, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Richard Polidi appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his civil complaint and denying his Motion for a New Hearing. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Polidi v. North Carolina State Bar, No. 1:16-cv-01322-TSE-IDD (E.D. Va. Oct. 31, 2016; Nov. 30, 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 2
