Salame M. Amr v. Virginia State University “vsu”

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2051
SALAME M. AMR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY “VSU”; VSU’s Board of Visitors;
EDDIE N. MOORE, JR.; W. ERIC THOMAS; PAMELA LEIGH-MACK;
LARRY C. BROWN; KEITH M. WILLIAMSON; NASSER RASHIDI; GERALD
BURTON; DONNA CRAWFORD; GLORIA YOUNG; ALI MOHAMED; OLIVER W.
HILL, JR.; WONDI MERSIE; ANDREW KANU; STEPHAN WILDEUS;
SHARON EVANS; AMERICAN SOCIETY OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION;
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:10-cv-00787-REP-MHL)
Submitted: March 15, 2012 Decided: March 19, 2012
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Salame M. Amr, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory Clayton Fleming,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Ronald Nicholas Regnery,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia;
Robert R. Musick, THOMPSON MCMULLAN, PC, Richmond, Virginia;
Margaret Sander, REED SMITH, LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Jeremy

-- 1 of 3 --

2
David Capps, HARMAN, CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Salame M. Amr appeals the district court’s orders
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing his complaint with prejudice and granting the
Defendants’ motions for sanctions. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons
stated by the district court. Amr v. Virginia State Univ., No.
3:10-cv-00787-REP-MHL (E.D. Va. Sept. 21, 2011). Amr’s pending
motion to hold appeal in abeyance is denied as moot. 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.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --