Noah v. AOL-Time Warner Inc, (4th Cir. 2004)
Linked as:
Text
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1770 SAAD S. NOAH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus
AOL-TIME WARNER, INCORPORATED; AMERICA ONLINE,
INCORPORATED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-02-1316-A)
Submitted: November 14, 2003 Decided: March 24, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Saad S. Noah, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Colin Rushing, WILMER,
CUTLER & PICKERING, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
* NoahÂ’s notice of appeal was docketed by the district court on June 17, 2003, one day after the expiration of the thirty-day
appeal period. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). Noah, however, has submitted
a delivery receipt from the United States Postal Service confirming
a delivery to the district court on June 16, 2003. This document
suggests that Noah filed a timely notice of appeal. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Saad S. Noah appeals the district courtÂ’s order granting DefendantsÂ’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
and dismissing NoahÂ’s cause of action. Noah also appeals from the
scheduling order entered by the magistrate judge. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. See
Noah v. AOL Time
Warner, Inc. , No. CA-02-1316-A (E.D. Va. May 15, 2003). We deny the motion to dismiss. * 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
Sponsored links
