Epes v. Green Tree Financial Servicing

Filing 920070521


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2045 LEWANDA PARTHENIA EPES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GREEN TREE FINANCIAL SERVICING CORPORATION; KIRK D. MCQUIDDY, Law Office; SPECIALIZED, INCORPORATED OF VIRGINIA; HAWTHORNE & HAWTHORNE, Attorneys, Defendants - Appellees. ----------------------------------CINDY PEARSON, Movant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (3:04-cv-00455-REP) Submitted: April 9, 2007 Decided: May 21, 2007 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lewanda Parthenia Epes, Appellant Pro Se. Brian R. M. Adams, Bryan G. Scott, SPOTTS FAIN, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Mark Charles Nanavati, SINNOTT, NUCKOLS & LOGAN, PC, Midlothian, Virginia; Lawrence Alexis Dunn, MORRIS & MORRIS, Richmond, Virginia; Raymond Paul Childress, Jr., Michele Adams Mulligan, Kristie Gay Haynes, MCSWEENEY, CRUMP, CHILDRESS & GOULD, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Lewanda Parthenia Epes appeals the district court's order dismissing her civil action. no reversible error. We have reviewed the record and find Accordingly, we deny Appellee Green Tree Financial Servicing Corporation's motion for sanctions and affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court.* See Epes v. Green Tree Fin. Servicing Corp., No. 3:04-cv-00455-REP (E.D. Va. Dec. 14, 2004; May 12, 2006; Aug. 24, 2006). 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 Although the district court was not deprived of subject matter jurisdiction by the state court's entry of judgment in Epes's parallel state action, see Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 292 (2005), the district court properly dismissed this action with prejudice because it was precluded by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. - 3 - *

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?