Epes v. Green Tree Financial Servicing

Filing 920070521

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -

*