U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1998

Ferrusi v. Evans

Ferrusi v. Evans
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided June 30, 1998

Ferrusi v. Evans

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2041

JOSEPH C.V. FERRUSI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

JEFFREY M. EVANS; RUSSELL L. HAWES; DAVID BADAL, III; DAVID M. BARR; JOHN A. PRIDDLE; ROBERT A. MORRIS; PATRICK C. PALMORE; ABRAM SHULSKY, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 97-2660

JOSEPH C.V. FERRUSI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

JEFFREY M. EVANS; RUSSELL L. HAWES; DAVID BADAL, III; DAVID M. BARR; JOHN A. PRIDDLE; ROBERT A. MORRIS; PATRICK C. PALMORE; ABRAM SHULSKY, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-1699-A)

Submitted: June 9, 1998 Decided: June 30, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph C.V. Ferrusi, Appellant Pro Se. John Minh Tran, Michael D.

Breen, GREENBERG, BRACKEN & TRAN, Alexandria, Virginia; John Murray Ballenger, THOMAS, BALLENGER, VOGELMAN & TURNER, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s orders granting Defen- dants’ motion to dismiss, motion for summary judgment and motion for attorney’s fees, and denying Appellant’s motions for recon- sideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Ferrusi v. Evans, No. CA-96-1699-A (E.D. Va. Mar. 12, Apr. 21, July 9, Sept. 11 & 30, & Nov. 19, 1997). We find counts I and III alleging defamation to be barred by the statute of limitations under Virginia law. See Va. Code Ann. §§ 8.01-247.1, 8.01-230 (Michie Supp. 1997). We deny Appellees’ motion for sanctions in this court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.