Mustafa H. Sa’id v. Best Buy

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2057
MUSTAFA H. SA’ID,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BEST BUY,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
FAIRFAX COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, ET AL;
COUNTY OF FAIRFAX POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL; D.
A. CROOKE, Sergeant, Individually; J. THOMAS
MANGER, Colonel, Individually; ERIC HANTE,
Officer, Individually; BRIAN J. MCANDREW,
Lieutenant, Individually; LEON G. WILLIAMS,
Major, Individually; THOMAS RYAN, Captain,
Individually; ARTHUR J. HURLOCK, JR.,
Individually; THOMAS E. TYMAN, Individually;
CHARLES K. PETERS, Captain, Individually;
WILLIAMS AUDREY M. SLYMAN, Major,
Individually; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ET AL,
Workers Compensation Commissioners; SUSAN A.
CUMMINS, Individually,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (CA-01-677-A)
Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: December 16, 2002

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mustafa H. Sa’id, Appellant Pro Se. John David Griffin, Beth
McNally Coyne, FOWLER, GRIFFIN, COYNE & COYNE, P.C., Winchester,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mustafa H. Sa’id appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion for “disposition of claim/judgment based on jurisdiction
amount to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant’s.” We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
deny Best Buy’s motion for sanctions and affirm on the reasoning of
the district court. See Sa’id v. Best Buy, No. CA-01-677-A (E.D.
Va. Aug. 22, 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 of 2 --