Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sudharmi v. Sadeq, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal of a case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The magistrate judge had awarded judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Sudharmi. The appellate court reviewed the magistrate's decision and found no reversible error, affirming the judgment based on the reasoning provided by the magistrate judge in their earlier opinion. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the relevant facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-06-11 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-1006

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal of a case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The magistrate judge had awarded judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Sudharmi. The appellate court reviewed the magistrate's decision and found no reversible error, affirming the judgment based on the reasoning provided by the magistrate judge in their earlier opinion. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the relevant facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views2 pages

    Sudharmi v. Sadeq, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding an appeal of a case under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The magistrate judge had awarded judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Sudharmi. The appellate court reviewed the magistrate's decision and found no reversible error, affirming the judgment based on the reasoning provided by the magistrate judge in their earlier opinion. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the relevant facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 02-1006

    SUDHARMI,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    HAITHAM S. SADEQ; ROLA A. SABBAGH,
    Defendants - Appellants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Thomas Rawles Jones, Jr.,
    Magistrate Judge. (CA-00-1451-A)

    Submitted:

    May 29, 2002

    Decided:

    June 11, 2002

    Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Haitham S. Sadeq, Rola M. Sabbagh, Appellants Pro Se.
    William Rau, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Matthew

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Haitham S. Sadeq and Rola A. Sabbagh appeal the magistrate
    judges order awarding judgment in favor of Appellee in this action
    filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.*

    We have reviewed the

    magistrate judges opinion and order and find no reversible error.


    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge.
    See Sudharmi v. Sadeq, No. CA-00-1451-A (E.D. Va. Nov. 26, 2001).
    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

    The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate


    judge under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) (1994).
    2

    You might also like