Ross Fiorani v. Navy Federal Credit Union

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999576131-2] Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00291-LO-TCB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999645603]. Mailed to: Ross Fiorani, Jr. [15-1387]

Appeal: 15-1387

Doc: 16

Filed: 08/24/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1387

ROSS A. FIORANI, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; FAIRFAX COUNTY POLICE, LawEnforcement Agency; FEIGLESON, A Fairfax County Police
Officer,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
ROBERT BERGER, Senior Vice-President of Navy Federal; KAREN
COMPHER, Senior manager at Navy Federal; JOHN STEINER,
Manager of Navy Federal; KIM LILLY, Manager at Navy Federal;
SIA, A Company; THEMA SCOTT, Tow-Truck Driver,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:15-cv-00291-LO-TCB)

Submitted:

August 20, 2015

Decided:

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

August 24, 2015

Appeal: 15-1387

Doc: 16

Filed: 08/24/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Ross A. Fiorani, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark Bierbower, HUNTON
& WILLIAMS, LLP, Washington, DC; Thomas R. Waskom, HUNTON &
WILLIAMS,
LLP,
Richmond,
Virginia;
Ann
Gouldin
Killalea,
Assistant County Attorney, David P. Bobzien, FAIRFAX COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-1387

Doc: 16

Filed: 08/24/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ross A. Fiorani, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his civil complaint.
find no reversible error.

We have reviewed the record and

Accordingly, although we grant leave

to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court.

Fiorani v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, No.

1:15-cv-00291-LO-TCB (E.D. Va. Apr. 14, 2015).

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3