Lawrence Glaser v. Enzo Biochem, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:02-cv-01242-GBL. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998692752]. Mailed to: Lawrence F. Glaser. [11-1439]

Appeal: 11-1439

Document: 19

Date Filed: 10/04/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1439

LAWRENCE F. GLASER, individually and on behalf of Kimberly,
Erin, Hannah and Benjamin Glaser,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
MAUREEN GLASER, individually and
Erin, Hannah and Benjamin Glaser,

on

behalf

of

Kimberly,

Plaintiff,
v.
ENZO BIOCHEM, INCORPORATED; HEIMAN GROSS; BARRY WEINER;
ELAZAR
RABBANI;
SHARIM
RABBANI;
JOHN
DELUCCA;
DEAN
ENGELHARDT,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
RICHARD KEATING; DOUG YATES; JOHN DOE, 1-50,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:02-cv-01242-GBL)

Submitted:

September 29, 2011

Decided:

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

October 4, 2011

Appeal: 11-1439

Document: 19

Date Filed: 10/04/2011

Page: 2 of 3

Lawrence F. Glaser, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald Howard Chase,
MORRISON & COHEN, LLP, New York, New York; Robert Richardson
Vieth, COOLEY, GODWARD & KRONISH, LLP, Reston, Virginia, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-1439

Document: 19

Date Filed: 10/04/2011

Page: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Lawrence F. Glaser appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60
and motion for sanctions, which were filed in his civil action.
We

have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

Glaser

v.

Enzo

(E.D. Va. Apr. 7, 2011).

Biochem,

Inc.,

No.

1:02-cv-01242-GBL

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