Court Opinion

ID: 9929752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-03 21:01:07.526388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:35:59.744392
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1767       Doc: 17         Filed: 02/02/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                              UNPUBLISHED

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 23-1767

        ANTHONY ZAPPIN,

                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

                       v.

        ANCIL G. RAMEY; STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC; KEVIN M. DOYLE; JORGE
        DOPICO; RACHAEL FLETCHER CIPOLETTI,

                              Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00080)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 2, 2024

        Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges. ∗

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Anthony Zappin, Appellant Pro Se. Ancil Glenn Ramey, STEPTOE LLP, Huntington,
        West Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

              ∗
                  The opinion is filed by a quorum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1767      Doc: 17         Filed: 02/02/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Anthony Zappin appeals the district court’s orders (a) accepting the magistrate

        judge’s recommendation to grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss Zappin’s 42 U.S.C.

        § 1983 civil rights and state law abuse of process claims and for a prefiling injunction

        against Zappin; and (b) denying Zappin’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed

        the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.

        Zappin v. Ramey, No. 3:22-cv-00080 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 2, 2023; June 20, 2023). 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