Chase Hunter

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00414-HEH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999790478].. [15-1981, 15-1985, 15-2128]

Appeal: 15-1981

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/07/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1981

In Re:

CHASE CARMEN HUNTER,
Appellant.

No. 15-1985

In Re:

CHASE CARMEN HUNTER,
Appellant.

No. 15-2128

In Re:

CHASE CARMEN HUNTER,
Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge.
(3:15-cv-00414-HEH; 3:15-cv-00336-HEH; 3:15-cv-00206HEH)

Submitted:

January 26, 2016

Before DUNCAN
Circuit Judge.

and

DIAZ,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

and

April 7, 2016

DAVIS,

Senior

Appeal: 15-1981

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/07/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

Chase Carmen Hunter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-1981

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/07/2016

Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:
In

these

consolidated

appeals,

Chase

Carmen

Hunter

challenges the district court’s dismissal of Hunter’s complaints
as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (2012).
On appeal, Hunter argues that (1) the district judge should have
recused himself, (2) the district court’s orders did not comply
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1) or 58, and (3) she is entitled to
the relief sought.
Because
court,

she

review.
572,

Hunter
has

failed

failed

to

to

seek

preserve

recusal
this

in

issue

the
for

district
appellate

Accord Flame S.A. v. Freight Bulk Pte. Ltd., 807 F.3d

592

(4th

Cir.

2015).

We

discern

no

exceptional

or

extraordinary circumstances in this case justifying review of
this issue on its merits.

Id.; see Corti v. Storage Tech.

Corp.,

(4th

304

F.3d

336,

343

Cir.

2002)

(Niemeyer,

J.,

concurring) (“[I]t remains the law of this circuit that when a
party to a civil action fails to raise a point at trial, that
party waives review of the issue unless there are exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances justifying review.”).
We next review for abuse of discretion the district court’s
decision to dismiss Hunter’s petitions under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Michau v. Charleston Cty., 434 F.3d 725, 728 (4th Cir. 2006)
(identifying

standard

of

review).

Hunter

contends

that

the

district court’s order should be overturned because, by failing
3

Appeal: 15-1981

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/07/2016

Pg: 4 of 5

to make specific findings of fact, it did not comply with Fed.
R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1) or 58.

Hunter misconstrues these rules.

Rule 52(a)(1) requires that a district court, “[i]n an action
tried on the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury,
. . . find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law
separately,”
Fed.

R.

Civ.

and
P.

enter

judgment

52(a)(1).

in

Rule

regarding the entry of judgment.

accordance
58

with

provides

Rule

general

Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.

district court violated neither of these rules.

58.

rules
The

Because the

action did not go to trial, Rule 52(a)(1) is inapplicable.

Rule

58 does not require the district court to make findings of fact.
In her final argument, Hunter reiterates the allegations
contained in her petitions for declaratory judgment, and claims
that she was entitled to relief.

First, the district court

properly found that the relief she sought in her first petition
had

already

subsequently

been
denied

denied
by

by

this

the

district

court.

In

court,
re:

and

was

Hunter,

No.

3:14-cv-00648 (E.D. Va. PACER Nos. 2, 4), aff’d, 621 F. App’x
253 (4th Cir. 2015) (No. 14-2062).

Second, we find no error in

the district court’s dismissal of Hunter’s conclusory challenge
to the constitutionality of a Virginia statute.

Finally, we

agree with the district court’s determination that it lacked
jurisdiction to grant the relief sought in her third petition.
See Davani v. Va. Dep’t of Transp., 434 F.3d 712, 718-19 (4th
4

Appeal: 15-1981

Doc: 8

Filed: 04/07/2016

Pg: 5 of 5

Cir. 2006) (holding that “state-court loser” seeking redress in
federal district court asserts claim that “is, by definition,
‘inextricably

intertwined’

with”

state

court

decision

and

therefore outside federal court’s jurisdiction).
Hunter has filed numerous frivolous appeals and petitions
for mandamus in the last two years.

Hunter is warned that

similar filings in the future may result in issuance of an order
to

show

cause

why

a

prefiling

injunction

or

other

sanctions

should not be entered against her by this court.
We dismiss Hunter’s appeals as frivolous.
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with
contentions
this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

5