UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1163
ALLEN V. JAFFE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LISA SPICKLER GOODWIN, Attorney; JOHN R. WALK,
Attorney; HIRSCHLER, FLEISCHER, WEINBERG, COX
AND ALLEN, P.C., a professional corporation;
VIRGINIA PHOTOTHERAPY, L.L.C.; RONALD MARK
LANDESS, Doctor, DPM; CATHERINE HAMMOND,
Judge,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (CA-03-799)
Submitted: June 30, 2004 Decided: July 15, 2004
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Allen V. Jaffe, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Emery Draim, David Drake
Hudgins, HUDGINS LAW FIRM, Alexandria, Virginia; Charles Frederick
Witthoefft, HIRSCHLER, FLEISCHER, Richmond, Virginia; James Walter
Hopper, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Allen V. Jaffe appeals the district court’s orders
denying his motion for extension of time to file responsive
pleadings and dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Jaffe v. Goodwin, No. CA-03-799 (E.D. Va. Nov.
7, 2003; Jan. 7, 2004). Although we decline to impose sanctions on
Jaffe for pursuing this appeal at this time, we caution that
further frivolous or malicious filings before this court or in the
district court could result in sanctions. We express no opinion as
to the motion for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 pending in the
district court. Accordingly, we deny all Appellees’ motions for
sanctions. We further grant Appellees’ motions to strike
“Appellant’s Answer to Appellees’ Reply Brief in Support of Rule 38
Motion for Sanctions.” 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
- 3 -