Mohammed Moosavi v. Fairfax County Circuit Court


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000028467-2] Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00730-JCC-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000106072]. Mailed to: Mohammed Moosavi. [16-2461]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-2461 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/23/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2461 MOHAMMED MOE MOOSAVI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FAIRFAX COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; DEPARTMENT OF TAX ADMINISTRATION; JOHN RUSS, Mr. Commissioner; DEAN SADREDIN, Mr. Step-son in Minnesota; REYCON PROPERTIES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-00730-JCC-IDD) Submitted: June 13, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mohammed Moe Moosavi, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Decided: June 23, 2017 Appeal: 16-2461 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/23/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Mohammed Moe Moosavi appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order to particularize his claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Moosavi’s complaint, given that nothing in his filings suggests a viable federal claim. However, based on the possibility that Moosavi did not receive the district court’s order to particularize, see Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 632 (1962), and our consideration of the factors in Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir. 1989), we conclude that the dismissal should be without prejudice. We therefore deny Moosavi’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm the district court’s judgment as modified to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice. 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 AS MODIFIED 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?