Lena Hardaway v. Checkers Drive-In Restaurant

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:11-cv-01575-RWT. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999788588]. Mailed to: L. Hardaway. [15-2219]

Appeal: 15-2219

Doc: 15

Filed: 04/05/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2219

LENA HARDAWAY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CHECKERS DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS, INC.,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
CHECKERS/RALLY
RESTAURANT;
ADVENTURES
THREE
INC.;
DOUGLAS S. GORDON INSURANCE SERVICES; JOHN DOE INSURANCE
COMPANY; IMOGENE F. HOLMES; DOES 1-25,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:11-cv-01575-RWT)

Submitted:

March 24, 2016

Decided:

April 5, 2016

Before KING, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lena Hardaway, Appellant Pro Se. Richard E. Schimel, BREGMAN,
BERBERT, SCHWARTZ & GILDAY, LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Appeal: 15-2219

Doc: 15

Filed: 04/05/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-2219

Doc: 15

Filed: 04/05/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Lena

Hardaway

dismissing

her

prosecution.

appeals

complaint

On

appeal,

from

the

without
Hardaway

district

court’s

prejudice
asserts

for

that

order

want

the

of

district

court did not properly update her address and that she did not
timely receive the district court’s order to show cause.

We

affirm.
Hardaway

claims

that

she

filed

a

complaint

against

a

district court judge with the Justice Department on August 17,
2015, and filed an additional complaint with the Chief Judge of
the District of Maryland on August 28, 2015.

Hardaway asserts

that she placed a change of address form in the envelope to the
Chief Judge.

Hardaway does not provide any documentary proof of

these claims.
It appears that Hardaway’s “complaints” were in a separate
case or were an attempt to open an investigation or another
case.

These documents are not filed in the instant case.

The

United States District Court for the District of Maryland Rule
102(b)(iii) requires self-represented litigants to file change
of address forms with the Clerk in every case in which they
currently
served.

have

an

address

where

case-related

papers

may

be

Even assuming that the document Hardaway references was

a change of address form for the instant case, Hardaway states

3

Appeal: 15-2219

Doc: 15

Filed: 04/05/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

that she sent it to the Chief Judge rather than the Clerk of the
Court.
Moreover, on appeal, Hardaway presents no showing of good
cause for her failure to pursue her case, so any error by the
district court was merely harmless.

The district court granted

in part Hardaway’s motion to compel on September 16, 2013, and
Hardaway did not file another document in her case until her
notice of appeal on October 9, 2015.
much

misconduct

in

her

case,

she

While she claims there was
does

not

allege

that

she

specifically attempted to file documents after September 2013,
nor does she explain her failure to prosecute her case during
that time period.

Finally, while Hardaway raises numerous other

claims on appeal, we find that they are irrelevant to the basis
for dismissal.
Accordingly, we affirm.

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.
AFFIRMED

4