Court Opinion

ID: 9404696
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 21:00:32.35849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:16.300343
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2084      Doc: 54         Filed: 06/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2084

        CAVOUR NDAM,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, a/k/a Deutsche Lufthansa
        Aktiengesellschaft Inc.,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Patricia Tolliver Giles, District Judge. (1:21-cv-01258-PTG-WEF)

        Submitted: February 7, 2023                                       Decided: June 22, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Circuit Judge, and WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit
        Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Cavour Ndam, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Michael Stern, SCHNADER, HARRISON,
        SEGAL & LEWIS LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2084         Doc: 54     Filed: 06/22/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Cavour Ndam appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint based

        on its finding that Ndam committed fraud on the court. We have reviewed the record and

        find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Ndam v.

        Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft, No. 1:21-cv-01258-PTG-WEF (E.D. Va. Sept. 15,

        2022). We deny Ndam’s motion to supplement the record on appeal by uploading digital

        audio recordings. 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