JONES v. U.S., 13-2441. (2014)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20140327127
Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 27, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 27, 2014
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Pamela M. Jones appeals the district court's order granting the Government's motion to dismiss her complaint filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671-2680 (2012). The district court concluded that Jones sought to relitigate a ruling issued by a different district court in an earlier FTCA proceeding, and found this proceeding barred by the doctrine of res judicata and t
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Pamela M. Jones appeals the district court's order granting the Government's motion to dismiss her complaint filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671-2680 (2012). The district court concluded that Jones sought to relitigate a ruling issued by a different district court in an earlier FTCA proceeding, and found this proceeding barred by the doctrine of res judicata and th..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Pamela M. Jones appeals the district court's order granting the Government's motion to dismiss her complaint filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680 (2012). The district court concluded that Jones sought to relitigate a ruling issued by a different district court in an earlier FTCA proceeding, and found this proceeding barred by the doctrine of res judicata and the applicable statutes of limitations. The court also denied Jones' motion to amend the complaint and her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration of the prior proceeding. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jones v. United States, No. 4:09-cv-00129-MSD-DEM (E.D. Va. Sept. 26, 2013). 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.
Source: Leagle
