Court Opinion

ID: 9960737
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 21:01:04.45305+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:50.065040
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2009      Doc: 24         Filed: 04/15/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-2009

        ANTHONY ZAPPIN,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        CAREY, DOUGLAS, KESSLER, & RUBY, PLLC; S. BENJAMIN BRYANT,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, Chief District Judge. (2:22-cv-00292)

        Submitted: April 11, 2024                                         Decided: April 15, 2024

        Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Anthony Zappin, Appellant Pro Se. Robert L. Bays, BOWLES RICE, LLP, Parkersburg,
        West Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2009     Doc: 24        Filed: 04/15/2024    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Anthony Zappin appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s

        recommendation to grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss Zappin’s legal malpractice claim

        and for a prefiling injunction against Zappin. We have reviewed the record and find no

        reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Zappin v. Carey,

        Douglas, Kessler, & Ruby, PLLC, No. 2:22-cv-00292 (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 30, 2023). We

        deny as moot Defendants’ motion to dismiss Zappin’s appeal for failure to prosecute. 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