Case ID: f-appx_207/html/0329-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Abdul S. AHMADY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRINCEFIELD, HARTNETT, TOMPKINS, AND CLARK, P.C., Defendant-Appellee, v. Amina Ahmady, Plaintiff.
    No. 06-1862.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 21, 2006.
    Decided: Nov. 28, 2006.
    Abdul S. Ahmady, Appellant Pro Se. Michael William Tompkins, Brincefield, Hartnett & Associates, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(e).
   PER CURIAM:

Abdul S. Ahmady appeals the district court’s orders dismissing Ahmady’s complaint and denying Ahmady’s “Retrying Motion Court Order Misunderstanding,” which the district court construed as as Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. The district court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction in this civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Ahmady v. Brincefield, No. 1:06-cv-00119-CMH (E.D. Va. May 19, 2006 and June 19, 2006). 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.