Kate Uwasomba v. Clyde Jett


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999008327-2] Originating case number: 3:12-cv-00213-HEH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999050381]. Mailed to: Kate Uwasomba. [12-2253]

Download PDF
Appeal: 12-2253 Doc: 23 Filed: 02/25/2013 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2253 KATE I. UWASOMBA, Plaintiff – Appellant, and JUDITH UWASOMBA; SARAH UWASOMBA, Plaintiffs, v. CLYDE D. JETT, in individual and official capacity; CENTRAL TRANSPORT INCORPORATED; DOUGLAS A. LINES, PC, attorney; DONALDSON & BLACK INCORPORATION; ARONBERG GOLDGEHN & GARMISA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:12-cv-00213-HEH) Submitted: February 21, 2013 Before AGEE and Circuit Judge. DAVIS, Circuit Decided: February 25, 2013 Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kate I. Uwasomba, Appellant Pro Se. WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & Cynthia Lee Santoni, DICKER, LLP, McLean, Appeal: 12-2253 Doc: 23 Filed: 02/25/2013 Pg: 2 of 3 Virginia; Ronald Paul Herbert, HERBERT & SATTERWHITE PC, Richmond, Virginia; Annemarie DiNardo Cleary, Douglas P. Rucker, Jr., SANDS ANDERSON, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 12-2253 Doc: 23 Filed: 02/25/2013 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Kate I. Uwasomba appeals the district court’s order denying reconsideration of its order denying her Federal Rule of Civil Procedure dismissing her jurisdiction. reversible 60(b) civil We error. motion complaint have for relief for lack reviewed Accordingly, the we from of subject record grant its order matter and find no Uwasomba leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the district court’s order. Uwasomba v. Jett, 3:12-cv-00213-HEW (E.D. Va. Sept. 21, 2012). We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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?