SOLIMANA. YOUSSEF v. TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH BRUNSWICK

Annotate this Case
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                      APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
     This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
      Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
        parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.




                                       SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                       APPELLATE DIVISION
                                       DOCKET NO. A-4933-16T2

SOLIMAN A. YOUSSEF,

        Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH BRUNSWICK and
ZONING OFFICER CHARLES LYNCH,

     Defendants-Respondents.
_________________________________

              Submitted May 16, 2018 – Decided June 1, 2018

              Before Judges Nugent and Geiger.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-
              1258-16.

              Soliman A. Youssef, appellant, pro se.

              John R. Parker, attorney for respondent.

PER CURIAM

        Plaintiff, Soliman A. Youssef, appeals from a May 26, 2017

Law Division order.        The order denied plaintiff's motion to vacate

an April 13, 2017 order that dismissed his complaint with prejudice
for failure to provide discovery and failure to comply with a

previous court order.

     On this appeal, plaintiff argues that the judge who issued

these two orders (1) "severely violated the Federal Civil Rights

Act, 
42 U.S.C. 1983," and (2) "severely violated the 'Court's

Cannons'   that    [a]dminister   the   Judicial   Conduct."    Having

carefully considered plaintiff's arguments in light of the record

and controlling legal precedent, we find them to be without

sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.          R.

2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

     Affirmed.




                                   2                           A-4933-16T2


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.