Starsha Sewell v. Fidelity National Financial

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to strike [999797582-2] in 16-1352; denying Motion to seal [999804209-2] in 16-1352 Originating case number: 8:15-cv-03077-PWG. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999927905]. [16-1352, 16-1354]

Appeal: 16-1352

Doc: 26

Filed: 09/13/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1352

STARSHA SEWELL,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, in care of
Insurance Company, Milestone Title, LLC;
INSURANCE COMPANY; MILESTONE TITLE, LLC,

Chicago
CHICAGO

Title
TITLE

Chicago

Title

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-1354

STARSHA SEWELL,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, in care
Insurance Company, Milestone Title, LLC,

of

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Paul W. Grimm, District Judge.
(8:15-cv-03077-PWG; 8:15-cv-03392-PWG)

Submitted:

September 9, 2016

Decided:

September 13, 2016

Appeal: 16-1352

Doc: 26

Filed: 09/13/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Starsha Sewell, Appellant Pro Se.
Michael William Tompkins,
FIDELITY NATIONAL LAW GROUP, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1352

Doc: 26

Filed: 09/13/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Starsha
dismissing

Sewell

these

appeals

civil

the

actions

and

denying

Sewell

v.

Fidelity

and

Nat’l

find

for

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
court.

record

motions

reversible error.
district

the

her

orders

We

the

reviewed

court’s

reconsideration.

by

have

district

no

Financial,

Inc., Nos. 8:15-cv-03077-PWG; 8:15-cv-03392-PWG (D. Md. Oct. 23
& Nov. 19, 2015; Jan. 5, Feb. 24, Mar. 22 & Mar. 24, 2016).

The

motions

are

to

denied.
legal
before

strike

the

supplemental

appendix

and

to

seal

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3