Katherine Robinson v. Chesapeake Bank of Maryland

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-04119-CCB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000351407]. Mailed to: Katherine Robinson, Dana Williams. [18-1473]

Appeal: 18-1473

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/20/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1473

KATHERINE B. ROBINSON; DANA B. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CHESAPEAKE BANK OF MARYLAND; PROCTOR FINANCIAL, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:16-cv-04119-CCB)

Submitted: August 16, 2018

Decided: August 20, 2018

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Katherine B. Robinson, Dana B. Williams, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-1473

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/20/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Appellants have filed this appeal purporting to challenge a 2014 state court order
dismissing a state law property damage claim. We lack jurisdiction to review the state
court’s order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012) (“The courts of appeals (other than the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) shall have jurisdiction of appeals
from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States . . . .”); see also Dist. of
Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983) (recognizing that
federal courts do not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders).
To the extent Appellants seek to challenge this court’s 2017 order dismissing as
interlocutory a previous challenge to the district court’s dismissal of the underlying
federal action, see Robinson v. Chesapeake Bank of Md., 691 F. App’x 782 (4th Cir.
2017) (No. 17-1217), Appellants have already asked this court to revisit that order, and
we dismissed that appeal as duplicative and untimely, see Robinson v. Chesapeake Bank
of Md., 703 F. App’x 212 (4th Cir. 2017) (No. 17-1796). Accordingly, we dismiss this
appeal for lack of jurisdiction and as duplicative and untimely. 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 in the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2