Lewis v. Smith et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying 27 Motion to Vacate. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 3/11/2016. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(chh)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:15-cv-00606-MOC-DSC LORRAINE LEWIS, Plaintiff(s), Vs. ARCHIE L. SMITH III SMITH, DEBNAM, NARRON, DRAKE, SAINTISING & MYSERS KELLY S. KING BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY JEFF D. ROGERS, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER THIS MATTER is before the court on plaintiff’s pro se Notice of Demand to Vacate Void Judgment and Demand to Vacate Void Judgment, which cites Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reading that pleading in a light most favorable to plaintiff, she appears to argue that the court should set aside its Judgment as being void and contrary to law. The reasons plaintiff provides in support of such request are, however, nonsensical and appear to rely on constructions and conflations of legal jargon that find no support in the law this court must follow. Review of the Judgment reveals that it is a lawful Judgment which is consistent with current case law and that plaintiff’s Complaint was properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). Nothing in the plaintiff’s filing in any manner cures or calls into doubt the dismissal of this action for failure to state a cognizable cause of action. -1- ORDER IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that plaintiff’s pro se Notice of Demand to Vacate Void Judgment and Demand to Vacate Void Judgment (#27), deemed to be a Rule 60 Motion, is DENIED. Signed: March 11, 2016 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?