Arkalgud Lakshminarasimha v. FBI

Filing 920100623

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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 Circuit Judge.

KING,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 respond case to management pending response to order directing setting a the Government for to the

motions, to

deadline and

Government's

the from

complaint, filing

directing motions

Lakshminarasimha

refrain

additional

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). district court. emergency Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the

We also deny Lakshminarasimha's motions seeking to seal, to amend the complaint, to

hearings,

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 before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. AFFIRMED

4