Rosa Lansford v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.

Filing

Per Curiam OPINION filed : The district court's order is AFFIRMED, decision not for publication. Boyce F. Martin , Jr., Circuit Judge; Jeffrey S. Sutton, Circuit Judge and Joseph M. Hood, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.

Case: 12-5667

Document: 006111578964

Filed: 02/04/2013

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 13a0130n.06
No. 12-5667
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ROSA L. LANSFORD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P.,
Defendant-Appellee.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

FILED
Feb 04, 2013
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF
TENNESSEE

Before: MARTIN and SUTTON, Circuit Judges; HOOD, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM. Rosa L. Lansford, a pro se Tennessee resident, appeals a district court order
dismissing her cause of action with prejudice.
Lansford sued Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
(Title VII). Her complaint was dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)
following the parties’ stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. Lansford did not raise any issue in the
district court concerning the propriety of the court’s dismissal order.
Seeking reinstatement of her case, Lansford appeals, claiming that her former attorney signed
the stipulation of dismissal with prejudice without her knowledge or permission.
While Lansford purports to appeal from the district court’s order of dismissal, she is not
challenging the propriety of that order. In fact, she concedes that the district court did not err in
dismissing her case. Consequently, even if Lansford had properly raised the issue in the district

*

The Honorable Joseph M. Hood, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Kentucky, sitting by designation.

Case: 12-5667

Document: 006111578964

Filed: 02/04/2013

Page: 2

No. 12-5667
-2court, any issue concerning the parties’ intent or the propriety of the district court’s order is not
reviewable on appeal. See Robinson v. Jones, 142 F.3d 905, 906 (6th Cir. 1998).
Instead of challenging the propriety of the district court’s dismissal, Lansford seeks to have
this Court consider her allegation that her former attorney dismissed her case without her permission.
To the extent that Lansford seeks reinstatement of her case, her request is not well founded because
the parties’ properly executed stipulation of dismissal with prejudice was self-executing. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Green v. Nevers, 111 F.3d 1295, 1301 (6th Cir. 1997). To the extent that
Lansford seeks to pursue an action against her former attorney for misconduct or malfeasance, we
lack jurisdiction.

See Johnson ex rel. U.S. v. Thomas, 932 F.2d 747, 747 (8th Cir. 1991) (per

curiam).
The district court’s order is affirmed.