UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2096
AFAF KANAZEH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
KENNETH CROSSON; ARLEEN L. PRIEPETON,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
MICHAEL K. MANN; PANTONG MANN; LAUREN SHEA;
LOCKHEED MARTIN PC,
Defendants.
No. 02-2260
AFAF KANAZEH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ARLEEN L. PRIEPETON; LOCKHEED MARTIN, PC,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
MICHAEL K. MANN; PANTONG MANN; LAUREN SHEA,
Defendants.
No. 02-2261
AFAF KANAZEH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ARLEEN L. PRIEPETON; LOCKHEED MARTIN, PC,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
MICHAEL K. MANN; PANTONG MANN; LAUREN SHEA,
Defendants.
No. 02-2402
AFAF KANAZEH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ARLEEN L. PRIEPETON; LOCKHEED MARTIN PC;
KENNETH L. CROSSON,
Defendants - Appellees,
2
3
and
MICHAEL K. MANN; PANTONG MANN; LAUREN SHEA,
Defendants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-1083-A)
Submitted: January 27, 2003 Decided: March 10, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Afaf Kanazeh, Appellant Pro Se. Geoffrey Martin Bohn, CUNNINGHAM
& ASSOCIATES, Arlington, Virginia; Carol Thomas Stone, JORDAN,
COYNE & SAVITS, L.L.P., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
4
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Afaf Kanazeh appeals district
court orders granting the Appellees’ motions to dismiss. We have
reviewed the record and the district court orders and affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. See Kanazeh v. Priepeton, No. CA-
02-1083-A (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 2, 2002, entered Aug. 5, 2002; filed
Aug. 30, 2002, entered Sept. 3, 2002; entered Oct. 21, 2002; filed
Nov. 1, 2002, entered Nov. 4, 2002). We deny motions to strike
filed in Nos. 02-2096 and 02-2260, the motion for appointment of
counsel filed in No. 02-2096, and the motion for general relief
seeking to add a new party filed in all appeals. 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
5