Fatemeh Najafian v. Chevy Chase Bank

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [998931776-2] Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00462-GBL-TCB,09-18112-BFK,12-01057-BFK Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999010006]. Mailed to: Fatemeh Najafian, Frank Bove, Martha Davis, Lori Scott. [12-2081]

Appeal: 12-2081

Doc: 14

Filed: 12/26/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2081

FATEMEH NAJAFIAN,
Debtor - Appellant,
v.
CHEVY CHASE BANK; CAPITAL ONE N.A.; FANNIE MAE,
Creditors – Appellees,

KEVIN R MCCARTHY; W. CLARKSON MCDOW, JR., U. S. Trustee,
Trustees – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:12-cv-00462-GBL-TCB)

Submitted:

December 20, 2012

Decided:

December 26, 2012

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fatemeh Najafian, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Dean McMahan, Jr.,
Tennille Jo Checkovich, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia;
Lori Michelle Scott, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Tysons Corner, Virginia;
Frank J. Bove, Martha Lorene Davis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
TRUSTEE, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

Appeal: 12-2081

Doc: 14

Filed: 12/26/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-2081

Doc: 14

Filed: 12/26/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Fatemeh

Najafian

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing her action for
lack

of

subject

matter

jurisdiction.

record and find no reversible error.

We

have

reviewed

the

Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court.

See Najafian v. Chevy

Chase Bank, No. 1:12-cv-00462-GBL-TCB. (E.D. Va. Mar. 21, 2012;
Aug. 21, 2012).

We grant Najafian’s motion for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis and we dispense with oral argument because the
facts

and

materials

legal
before

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3