Case Name: Lawrence F. GLASER, individually and on behalf of Kimberly, Erin, Hannah and Benjamin Glaser, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Maureen Glaser, individually and on behalf of Kimberly, Erin, Hannah and Benjamin Glaser, Plaintiff, v. ENZO BIOCHEM, INCORPORATED; Heiman Gross; Barry Weiner; Elazar Rabbani; Sharim Rabbani; John Delucca; Dean Engelhardt, Defendants-Appellees, and Richard Keating; Doug Yates; John Doe, 1-50, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-04
Citations: 448 F. App'x 324
Docket Number: No. 11-1439
Parties: Lawrence F. GLASER, individually and on behalf of Kimberly, Erin, Hannah and Benjamin Glaser, Plaintiff—Appellant, and Maureen Glaser, individually and on behalf of Kimberly, Erin, Hannah and Benjamin Glaser, Plaintiff, v. ENZO BIOCHEM, INCORPORATED; Heiman Gross; Barry Weiner; Elazar Rabbani; Sharim Rabbani; John Delucca; Dean Engelhardt, Defendants—Appellees, and Richard Keating; Doug Yates; John Doe, 1-50, Defendants.
Judges: Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 448
Pages: 324–325

Head Matter:
Lawrence F. GLASER, individually and on behalf of Kimberly, Erin, Hannah and Benjamin Glaser, Plaintiff—Appellant, and Maureen Glaser, individually and on behalf of Kimberly, Erin, Hannah and Benjamin Glaser, Plaintiff, v. ENZO BIOCHEM, INCORPORATED; Heiman Gross; Barry Weiner; Elazar Rabbani; Sharim Rabbani; John Delucca; Dean Engelhardt, Defendants—Appellees, and Richard Keating; Doug Yates; John Doe, 1-50, Defendants.
No. 11-1439.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 29, 2011.
Decided: Oct. 4, 2011.
Lawrence F. Glaser, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Howard Chase, Morrison & Cohen, LLP, New York, New York; Robert Richardson Vieth, Cooley, Godward & Kronish, LLP, Reston, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence F. Glaser appeals the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 and motion for sanctions, which were filed in his civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Glaser v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., No. 1:02-cv-01242-GBL (E.D.Va. Apr. 7, 2011). 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.