Arkalgud Lakshminarasimha v. FBI, No. 09-2276 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2276 ARKALGUD N. LAKSHMINARASIMHA, Plaintiff Appellant, v. UNITED STATES (FEDERAL BUREAU OF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 KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Arkalgud N. Lakshminarasimha appeals the district court s order dismissing his civil action for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 case respond to Government s management pending motions, response Lakshminarasimha to order to refrain directing setting the from a the deadline complaint, filing Government and additional for to the directing motions 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 hearings, to seal, to amend the complaint, to 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 adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
