UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2276
ARKALGUD N. LAKSHMINARASIMHA,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES (FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION); ATTORNEY
GENERAL; OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES,
Defendants – Appellees.
No. 10-1080
ARKALGUD N. LAKSHMINARASIMHA,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES (FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION); ATTORNEY
GENERAL; OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:09-cv-00375-FL)
Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arkalgud N. Lakshminarasimha, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Fesak,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Arkalgud N.
Lakshminarasimha appeals the district court’s order dismissing
his civil action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and the
court’s case management order directing the Government to
respond to pending motions, setting a deadline for the
Government’s response to the complaint, and directing
Lakshminarasimha to refrain from filing additional motions
pending the court’s review of and ruling on motions pending in
his case. *
Because Lakshminarasimha’s informal briefs fail to
address the district court’s basis for dismissing his complaint
and fail to raise any arguments relevant to the court’s case
management order, those issues have been abandoned. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241
n.6 (4th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the
district court. We also deny Lakshminarasimha’s motions seeking
emergency hearings, to seal, to amend the complaint, to
expedite, to respond, for emergency reinstatement and access to
*
While interlocutory when the appeal was filed, the
district court’s subsequent final order permits review of this
order under the doctrine of cumulative finality. See Equip.
Fin. Group, Inc. v. Traverse Computer Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347
(4th Cir. 1992).
3
his children, for additional time to submit an amended appellate
brief, and for emergency and other relief.
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
4