Richard Polidi v. Cheshire Parker Schneider ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                   UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-1122
    RICHARD POLIDI,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    CHESHIRE PARKER SCHNEIDER & BRYAN, PLLC; ALAN SCHNEIDER;
    JOHN DOES 1-3,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    No. 17-1124
    RICHARD POLIDI,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    CARMEN HOYME BANNON, in each of her official and individual capacities;
    DOUGLAS BELL,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR, an Agency of the State of North
    Carolina; WAYNE TRUAX, in each of his official and individual capacities;
    KATHERINE JEAN, in each of her official and individual capacities; JOHN
    DOES 1-10; JOHN DOES 1-5,
    Defendants.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-01534-TSE-MSN; 1:16-cv-
    01535-TSE-MSN)
    Submitted: September 26, 2017                               Decided: September 28, 2017
    Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Richard Polidi, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Richard Polidi appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,
    1985 (2012) complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012) and denying his Motion
    to Set Aside Order and for a New Hearing. * We have reviewed the records and find no
    reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
    Polidi v. Cheshire Parker Schneider & Bryan, PLLC, No. 1:16-cv-01534-TSE-MSN
    (E.D. Va. Dec. 22, 2016; Jan. 25, 2017); Polidi v. Bannon, No. 1:16-cv-01535-TSE-MSN
    (E.D. Va. Dec. 28, 2016; filed Dec. 29, 2016 & entered Dec. 30, 2016). We dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
    the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    *
    The district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over Polidi’s state law claims,
    dismissing them without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (2012).
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-1122

Filed Date: 9/28/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021