Janece Mickens v. Intelligent Decisions, Inc.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999592875-2], [999572162-2] Originating case number: 1:14-cv-01486-AJT-TCB. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999628075]. Mailed to: Janece P. Mickens. [15-1381]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-1381 Doc: 20 Filed: 07/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1381 JANECE P. MICKENS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. INTELLIGENT DECISIONS, INC.; ZAMAN KHAN; THERESA POND; SUSAN MAYER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:14-cv-01486-AJT-TCB) Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 27, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Janece P. Mickens, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Nicholas Petkovich, Amanda Vaccaro, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Reston, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-1381 Doc: 20 Filed: 07/27/2015 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Janece Mickens appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her civil complaint for failure to prosecute. We have reviewed the record and See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Mickens leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Mickens v. Intelligent Decisions, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-01486-AJT-TCB (E.D. Va. Mar. 17, 2015). 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?