Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

182 F. App'x 204

Chaudhary v. Stevens

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided May 24, 2006

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2006-05-24

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 2007

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2006-05-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM:

¶1Nazir Chaudhary and Dogwood Realty appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying their motion to remand and granting defendants’ motion to dismiss. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Chaudhary v. Stevens, No. CA-05-382-3 (E.D.Va. Sept. 7, 2005). 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.

¶2AFFIRMED

/182/fappx/204 · .json · Public domain