Gregory Camden v. AMSEC Corporation

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to reopen case [998898028-2]; denying Motion to enforce [998898807-2]. Originating case number: 2:11-cv-00554-AWA-FBS. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998968379]. [12-1185]

Appeal: 12-1185

Doc: 32

Filed: 10/26/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1185

GREGORY E. CAMDEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
AMSEC CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District
Judge. (2:11-cv-00554-AWA-FBS)

Submitted:

October 10, 2012

Decided:

October 26, 2012

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory E. Camden, MONTAGNA KLEIN CAMDEN LLP, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellant. Michael W. Thomas, THOMAS, QUINN & KRIEGER, LLP,
San Francisco, California, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1185

Doc: 32

Filed: 10/26/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

Edward

appeals

PER CURIAM:
Gregory
order

dismissing

enforcement

of

his

Camden

civil

attorney’s

the

complaint

fee

orders

district

in

which

issued

in

a

court’s

he

sought

proceeding

under the Longshore and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act, 33
U.S.C. §§ 901-950 (2006).
no reversible error.

We have reviewed the record and find

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court.

Camden v. AMSEC Corp., No. 2:11-

cv-00554-AWA-FBS (E.D. Va. Jan. 20, 2012).

We grant Appellee’s

motion to reactivate the stayed appeal, and deny Camden’s motion
seeking
dispense

judgment
with

approving

oral

settlement

argument

because

of
the

the

parties.

facts

and

We
legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

2