The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
03-2133•Emmett Johnson Jafari v. General Motors Corporation
03-2133Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 7, 2004
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2133
EMMETT JOHNSON JAFARI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; SATURN CORPORATION,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
SATURN OF RICHMOND, INCORPORATED,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CA-02-918)
Submitted: March 29, 2004 Decided: May 7, 2004
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emmett Johnson Jafari, Appellant Pro Se. David Drake Hudgins, Sean
Charles Edward McDonough, HUDGINS LAW FIRM, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellees.
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Emmett Johnson Jafari appeals the district court’s order
accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendation to grant Defendants’
motion for summary judgment in this civil action, and a subsequent
order denying Jafari’s motion to vacate judgment. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. See Jafari v. Gen.
Motors Corp., No. CA-02-918 (E.D. Va. Sept. 12, 2003; Aug. 26,
2003). 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.