Josephat Mua v. California Casualty Indemnity
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for leave to file [999743475-2], denying Motion for leave to file [999696536-2]; denying Motion to vacate [999696555-2]; denying Motion for abeyance (Local Rule 12(d)) [999670359-2] Originating case number: 8:14-cv-03810-PJM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Josephat Mua, Francoise Vandenplas. [15-2048]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPHAT MUA; FRANCOISE VANDENPLAS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INDEMNITY EXCHANGE; MARSDEN & SELEDEE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
February 25, 2016
Before SHEDD and
February 29, 2016
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Josephat Mua, Francoise Vandenplas, Appellants Pro Se.
V. McCarron, James Olin Spiker, IV, SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES,
Baltimore, Maryland; Joel D. Seledee, MARSDEN & SELEDEE, LLC,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Appellants, Josephat Mua and Francoise Vandenplas, appeal
the district court’s order:
(1) dismissing with prejudice their
recovery of money CCIE wrongfully paid Appellants for property
damage; and (2) dismissing without prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction Appellants’ claims for non-property damage
benefits payable under the insurance policy.
filed several motions with this court, including a motion to
place this appeal in abeyance pending resolution of the related
state court case, and a motion for leave to file a motion to
vacate the district court’s judgment.
court’s dispositive holdings amounts to a waiver of appellate
review over those holdings.
See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court
brief.”); United States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th
Cir. 2004) (“It is a well settled rule that contentions not
To the extent Appellants seek to raise new claims
against Appellees, Appellants may not do so for the first time
Pg: 3 of 3
See Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d
403, 411 n.10 (4th Cir. 2010) (“We have previously made it clear
that the failure to present an argument to the district court
constitutes waiver before this court.”); Muth v. United States,
1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (noting that issues raised for
the first time on appeal are waived unless plain error or a
fundamental miscarriage of justice would result).
find no reversible error by the district court, we deny the
pending motions and affirm the district court’s judgment.
v. Cal. Cas. Indem. Exch., No. 8:14-cv-03810-PJM (D. Md. filed
Aug. 17, 2015, entered Aug. 19, 2015).
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
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?