Kate Uwasomba v. Clyde Jett

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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