Vicki Lindsey v. Highwoods Realty Limited Partn

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to supplement [999064231-2]; denying Motion to disqualify/recuse judge [999005766-2] Originating case number: 3:11-cv-00447-HEH-DJN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999116309]. Mailed to: Daniel Jay Gerber. [12-2527]

Appeal: 12-2527

Doc: 38

Filed: 05/28/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2527

VICKI A. LINDSEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HIGHWOODS REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; HRLP NC VA, L.P.;
HIGHWOODS PROPERTIES, INC.; WESTERN INDUSTRIES-SOUTH, LLC;
JOHN DOE # 1,
Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:11-cv-00447-HEH-DJN)

Submitted:

May 23, 2013

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

AGEE,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

May 28, 2013

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vicki A. Lindsey, Appellant Pro Se. Alison Wright Feehan, KUTAK
ROCK, LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Janeen Beth Koch, KALBAUGH, PFUND
& MESSERSMITH, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-2527

Doc: 38

Filed: 05/28/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Vicki

A.

Lindsey

appeals

from

the

district

court’s

orders denying her three separate Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions
seeking reconsideration of the district court’s order granting
summary

judgment

premises

liability

substance.
error.

for

the

and

Defendants
negligent

in

her

action

application

of

alleging
a

banned

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court.

Lindsey v. Highwoods Realty Ltd. P’ship, No.

3:11-cv-00447-HEH-DJN (E.D. Va. Dec. 5, 2012, Jan. 3, 2013, &
Jan. 31, 2013).

We deny Lindsey’s motion to supplement the

record on appeal and her motion to recuse several judges of this
court.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

2