Lawrence Glaser v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., No. 11-1439 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1439 LAWRENCE F. GLASER, individually and on behalf of Kimberly, Erin, Hannah and Benjamin Glaser,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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Lawrence F. Glaser appeals the district court s order denying his motion for reconsideration under Fed.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

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.