Richard Polidi v. Elizabeth Mendel

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2104 Doc: 16 Filed: 09/16/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-2104 RICHARD POLIDI, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ELIZABETH U. MENDEL, in her official capacity as a former Associate Solicitor of the United States Patent & Trademark Office; JAMES O. PAYNE, in his official capacity as former Deputy General Counsel of the United States Patent & Trademark Office; MICHELLE K. LEE, in her official capacity as the former Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office; KIMBERLY C. WEINREICH, in her official capacity as a staff attorney of the United States Patent & Trademark Office; JOHN HEATON, in his official capacity as Counsel for the United States Patent & Trademark Office; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE; DREW HIRSHFELD, performing the functions and duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office; JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Patricia Tolliver Giles, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00925-PTG-JFA) Submitted: June 25, 2025 Decided: September 16, 2025 Before NIEMEYER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2104 Doc: 16 Filed: 09/16/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 Richard Polidi, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2104 Doc: 16 Filed: 09/16/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Richard Polidi filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia asserting several claims against various United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) officials and employees concerning the purported withholding of exculpatory evidence with regard to his disbarment by the North Carolina State Bar and the PTO. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia (1) dismissed the majority of Polidi’s claims for improper venue, concluding that transferring the claims to the Eastern District of Virginia, where venue lie, was not in the interest of justice, and (2) transferred the remaining claim, alleging violations of the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, to the Eastern District of Virginia. The federal district court in the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees on the FOIA claim and denied Polidi’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions. Polidi timely appeals the district courts’ orders.* Having reviewed the record and finding no reversible error, we affirm the decisions of the district courts. Polidi v. Mendel, No. 1:22-cv-00925-PTG-JFA (E.D. Va. Sept. 1, 2023; Oct. 20, 2023); Polidi v. Mendel, No. 1:21-cv-01748-FYP (D.D.C. July 22, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * We have jurisdiction to review the order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissing some claims and transferring the remaining claim to the Eastern District of Virginia. Cf. Technosteel, LLC v. Beers Constr. Co., 271 F.3d 151, 157 (4th Cir. 2001). 3