Anand L. Daniell v. MICHAEL VUKOSA, Individually on behalf Himself

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1482
ANAND L. DANIELL,
Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL VUKOSA, Individually on behalf Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated; MICHAEL JOSENHANS, Individually
on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated;
ROBERT COLLIER, Individually on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated; SALLY LEBOW,
Plaintiffs – Appellees,
and
SOURCEFIRE, INC.; JOHN C. BECKER; MARTIN F. ROESCH; STEVEN
R. POLK; TIM A. GULERI; MICHAEL CRISTINZIANO; ARNOLD L.
PUNARO; CHARLES E. PETERS, JR.; KEVIN M. KLAUSMEYER; CISCO
SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED; SHASTA ACQUISITION CORP.;
ACQUISITION CORP.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District
Judge. (1:13-cv-02271-JFM; 1:13-cv-02332-JFM; 1:13-cv-02377-
JFM; 1:13-cv-02483-JKB)
Submitted: October 31, 2014 Decided: November 19, 2014
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anand L. Daniell, Appellant Pro Se. Edward B. Gerard, Stephen
J. Oddo, Justin D. Rieger, ROBBINS ARROYO LLP, San Diego,
California; Patrick Charles Smith, DEHAY & ELLISTON, LLP,
Baltimore, Maryland; Yelena Trepetin, Charles J. Piven, Charles
Noah Insler, BROWER PIVEN, Stevenson, Maryland; Evan J. Smith,
BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania; Mark D. Gately,
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Joseph K. Kanada,
Erik Jeffrey Olson, MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP, Palo Alto,
California; Thomas Matthew Buchanan, WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP,
Washington, D.C.; J. Erik Connolly, Robert L. Michels, Dan K.
Webb, Andrew J. Yahkind, WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP, Chicago,
Illinois, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Anand L. Daniell appeals the district court’s order
certifying a class for a class action complaint and approving a
settlement agreement, thereby overruling Daniell’s objection to
the settlement. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Daniell v. Vukosa, Nos. 1:13-cv-02271-
JFM; 1:13-cv-02332-JFM; 1:13-cv-02377-JFM; 1:13-cv-02483-JKB (D.
Md. Apr. 18, 2014). 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

-- 3 of 3 --