Sheikh v. Geisler ( 2001 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-2498
SIRAJ SHEIKH,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES A. GEISLER,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
JAMES F. O'CONNOR; INVEST IN AMERICA, L.P.;
INTERBANK CORPORATE SERVICES, INCORPORATED;
DOMINION INDUSTRIES, L.L.C.; MARKET MAKERS,
L.L.C.; ILENE MARIE HARRISON; JOHN L. CRINER,
II; STEVEN R. MAIMON; INTERBANK IMMIGRATION
SERVICES, INCORPORATED; ATLANTIC FOREX,
LIMITED; INTELLINET CORPORATE SERVICES,
INCORPORATED,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-99-1974-A)
Submitted: May 24, 2001 Decided: June 1, 2001
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James A. Geisler, Appellant Pro Se. David Alan Hirsch, VAN GILS &
HIRSCH, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James A. Geisler appeals the district court’s orders denying
his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and entering judgment for the
Plaintiff following a jury trial in this civil action. We have
reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to
grant Geisler’s motion for a new trial. Chesapeake Paper Products
Co. v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., 51 F.3d 1229, 1237. We
decline to review Geisler’s claims challenging the district court’s
denial of his pretrial motion to dismiss. Id. at 1234-37. Accord-
ingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2