Jaffe v. Goodwin, (4th Cir. 2004)

Text

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1163 ALLEN V. JAFFE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

LISA SPICKLER GOODWIN, Attorney; JOHN R. WALK,

Attorney; HIRSCHLER, FLEISCHER, WEINBERG, COX

AND ALLEN, P.C., a professional corporation;

VIRGINIA PHOTOTHERAPY, L.L.C.; RONALD MARK

LANDESS, Doctor, DPM; CATHERINE HAMMOND,

Judge, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District

Judge. (CA-03-799)

Submitted: June 30, 2004 Decided: July 15, 2004

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Allen V. Jaffe, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Emery Draim, David Drake

Hudgins, HUDGINS LAW FIRM, Alexandria, Virginia; Charles Frederick

Witthoefft, HIRSCHLER, FLEISCHER, Richmond, Virginia; James Walter

- 2 - Hopper, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

- 3 - PER CURIAM: Allen V. Jaffe appeals the district courtÂ’s orders denying his motion for extension of time to file responsive

pleadings and dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. See

Jaffe v. Goodwin

, No. CA-03-799 (E.D. Va. Nov. 7, 2003; Jan. 7, 2004). Although we decline to impose sanctions on

Jaffe for pursuing this appeal at this time, we caution that

further frivolous or malicious filings before this court or in the

district court could result in sanctions. We express no opinion as

to the motion for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 pending in the

district court. Accordingly, we deny all AppelleesÂ’ motions for

sanctions. We further grant AppelleesÂ’ motions to strike

“Appellant’s Answer to Appellees’ Reply Brief in Support of Rule 38

Motion 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

---