Yan Donovan v. EPA
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00178-TSE-MSN. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999722088]. Mailed to: Yan Donovan. [15-1960]
Appeal: 15-1960
Doc: 16
Filed: 12/21/2015
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1960
YAN DONOVAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Office of
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Office of Pesticide
Programs,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00178-TSE-MSN)
Submitted:
December 17, 2015
Decided:
December 21, 2015
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Yan Donovan, Appellant Pro Se. David Moskowitz, Assistant United
States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-1960
Doc: 16
Filed: 12/21/2015
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Yan Donovan appeals the district court’s order dismissing her
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
reversible error.
See Fed. R.
We have reviewed the record and find no
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court.
Donovan v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No.
1:15-cv-00178-TSE-MSN (E.D. Va. filed June 26, 2015 & entered June
29, 2015).
However, we affirm as modified to reflect that the
dismissal is without prejudice to Donovan’s right to refile in the
event she exhausts her administrative remedies.
We dispense with
oral
contentions
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
the
facts
and
materials
legal
before
this
court
are
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
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?