Shon Ashby v. U. S. Department of State

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for to remove appallee attorneys [1000139197-2], denying Motion for return of visa fees [1000094272-2], denying Motion for fraud [1000076661-2]; denying Motion to add party [1000101341-2] Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00585-FDW-DCK Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000158707]. Mailed to: Shon Ashby. [17-1532]

Appeal: 17-1532

Doc: 16

Filed: 09/20/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1532

SHON ASHBY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES, (USCIS); REX TILLERSON, Secretary of State,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:16-cv-00585-FDW-DCK)

Submitted: August 28, 2017

Decided: September 20, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shon Ashby, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Ilene Young, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-1532

Doc: 16

Filed: 09/20/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Shon Ashby appeals the district court’s order dismissing his amended complaint
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to
state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, Ashby v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No.
3:16-cv-00585-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C. Apr. 12, 2017). To the extent that Ashby seeks to
raise a new issue on appeal, we perceive no exceptional circumstances that would allow
us to reach such an issue. See Pornomo v. United States, 814 F.3d 681, 686 (4th Cir.
2016).

We deny Ashby’s motion to remove Appellees’ attorneys and nullify the

judgment, motion for return of visa application fees, motion to add additional defendants,
and motion for fraud. 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

2