Labasbas v. Moore ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-1509
LILLIE J.G. LABASBAS; ARNULFO O. LABASBAS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
JOHN E. MOORE; RICHARD B. KAUFMAN; ALBERT R.
COLAN; TOWN OF HERNDON, VIRGINIA; MAYOR RUST;
JOHN ORRISON; HENRY BIBBER; WILLIAM J.
LAPORTO, Attorney; HAROLD O. MILLER, Attorney;
GRAYSON P. HAINES, Attorney; JOHN H.
PARTRIDGE, Attorney; GARY LANCE SMITH,
Attorney; CARTER FOULDS; GARY MALASKY,
Attorney/Developer; HOTEL CONCEPTS, LLC;
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION;
VERIZON, INCORPORATED; CABLE COMPANY, John Doe
1 and 2; MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED;
JOHN W. FERRELL, Attorney/Agent,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CA-01-1906-A)
Submitted: November 20, 2002 Decided: December 12, 2002
Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lillie J.G. Labasbas, Arnulfo O. Labasbas, Appellants Pro Se. John
David McGavin, TRICHILO, BANCROFT, MCGAVIN, HORVATH & JUDKINS,
Fairfax, Virginia; William J. LaPorto, Heathsville, Virginia;
Harold O. Miller, Oakland, Maryland; Aaron Samuel Book, REED,
SMITH, HAZEL & THOMAS, L.L.P., Falls Church, Virginia; John Henry
Partridge, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN H. PARTRIDGE, Herndon, Virginia; Gary
Lance Smith, Winchester, Virginia; Carter Foulds, Winchester,
Virginia; Kathleen Joanna Lynch Holmes, RICHARDS, MCGETTIGAN,
REILLY & WEST, Alexandria, Virginia; Paul Steven Stahl, Assistant
Attorney General, Chantilly, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Lillie J.G. Labasbas and Arnulfo O. Labasbas appeal the
district court’s order granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss
their civil action alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1961-1968(West 2000 & Supp. 2002). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Labasbas v. Moore, No. CA-01-1906-A (E.D. Va.
filed May 16, 2002, entered May 20, 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