Sa'id v. Best Buy ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2057 MUSTAFA H. SA’ID, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BEST BUY, Defendant - Appellee, and FAIRFAX COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, ET AL; COUNTY OF FAIRFAX POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL; D. A. CROOKE, Sergeant, Individually; J. THOMAS MANGER, Colonel, Individually; ERIC HANTE, Officer, Individually; BRIAN J. MCANDREW, Lieutenant, Individually; LEON G. WILLIAMS, Major, Individually; THOMAS RYAN, Captain, Individually; ARTHUR J. HURLOCK, JR., Individually; THOMAS E. TYMAN, Individually; CHARLES K. PETERS, Captain, Individually; WILLIAMS AUDREY M. SLYMAN, Major, Individually; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ET AL, Workers Compensation Commissioners; SUSAN A. CUMMINS, Individually, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-01-677-A) Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: December 16, 2002 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mustafa H. Sa’id, Appellant Pro Se. John David Griffin, Beth McNally Coyne, FOWLER, GRIFFIN, COYNE & COYNE, P.C., Winchester, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mustafa H. Sa’id appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for “disposition of claim/judgment based on jurisdiction amount to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant’s.” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Best Buy’s motion for sanctions and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Sa’id v. Best Buy, No. CA-01-677-A (E.D. Va. Aug. 22, 2002). 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 2