Pamela Jones v. US
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:09-cv-00129-MSD-DEM. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999324087]. Mailed to: P. Jones. [13-2441]
Appeal: 13-2441
Doc: 11
Filed: 03/27/2014
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2441
PAMELA JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (4:09-cv-00129-MSD-DEM)
Submitted:
March 25, 2014
Decided:
March 27, 2014
Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pamela M. Jones,
Assistant
United
Appellee.
Appellant Pro Se.
Mark
States
Attorney,
Norfolk,
Anthony Exley,
Virginia,
for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-2441
Doc: 11
Filed: 03/27/2014
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Pamela
M.
Jones
appeals
the
district
court’s
order
granting the Government’s motion to dismiss her complaint filed
under
the
Federal
Tort
Claims
§§ 1346(b), 2671-2680 (2012).
Jones
sought
to
relitigate
Act
(“FTCA”),
28
U.S.C.
The district court concluded that
a
ruling
issued
by
a
different
district court in an earlier FTCA proceeding, and found this
proceeding
barred
by
applicable
statutes
the
of
doctrine
of
limitations.
res
judicata
The
court
and
also
the
denied
Jones’ motion to amend the complaint and her Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b) motion seeking reconsideration of the prior proceeding.
We
have
reviewed
the
record
and
find
no
reversible
error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.
Jones v. United States, No. 4:09-cv-00129-MSD-DEM (E.D.
Va. Sept. 26, 2013).
facts
and
materials
legal
before
We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
are
adequately
this
and
argument
court
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
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?