Case Name: Robert NESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANALOSTAN HOMES ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee. Robert Nester, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Analostan Homes Association, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-09
Citations: 65 F. App'x 913
Docket Number: Nos. 02-2082, 02-2323
Parties: Robert NESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANALOSTAN HOMES ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee. Robert Nester, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Analostan Homes Association, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 65
Pages: 913–914

Head Matter:
Robert NESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANALOSTAN HOMES ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee. Robert Nester, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Analostan Homes Association, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 02-2082, 02-2323.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 8, 2003.
Decided June 9, 2003.
Barry Weintraub, Stafford, Virginia, for Appellant. Michael L. O’Reilly, The O’Reilly Law Firm, Herndon, Virginia; Raymond J. Diaz, Rees, Broome & Diaz, P.C., Vienna, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Robert Nester appeals the district court's order awarding summary judgment to Analostan Homes Association, Inc. ("Analostan"), and dismissing his complaint brought pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601-3619 (2000). Analostan cross-appeals claiming that the district court abused its discretion in denying Analostan's motion for costs and fees under 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c). We have reviewed the parties' briefs and the .joint appendix and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Nester v. Analostan Homes Ass'n, Inc., No. CA-02-88-A (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 20, 2002 & entered Aug. 21, 2002; filed Sept. 26, 2002 & entered Oct. 1, 2002). We remind Nester and his counsel that Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 requires that pleadings be filed with a good faith belief that they are not frivolous and that further failure to abide by the Rule is grounds for sanctions. 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.