Jennifer McGowan v. ABM Janitorial Services, North

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cv-00388-MSD-DEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998781195]. Mailed to: Jennifer M. McGowan. [11-1840]

Download PDF
Appeal: 11-1840 Document: 15 Date Filed: 02/06/2012 Page: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1840 JENNIFER M. MCGOWAN, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES, NORTHEAST, INC.; URSULA BASKETT, Defendants – Appellees, and ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES - NORTH CENTRAL, INC.; ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES - MID-ATLANTIC, INC., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00388-MSD-DEM) Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 6, 2012 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jennifer M. McGowan, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Ward, MORRIS & MORRIS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 11-1840 Document: 15 Date Filed: 02/06/2012 Page: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: In this personal injury action, removed to federal court under the court’s diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2006), Jennifer M. McGowan appeals the district court's order granting Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Having reviewed the district court’s ruling de novo, Taylor v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc., 658 F.3d 402, 408 (4th Cir. 2011), by the district court. we affirm for the reasons stated McGowan v. ABM Janitorial Servs., No. 2:10-cv-00388-MSD-DEM (E.D. Va. filed June 29 & entered June 30, 2011). legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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?