Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wilhelmj v. First Bank, 00-2441 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2441 Visitors: 21
Filed: Apr. 24, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2441 MARY JO WILHELMJ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FIRST BANK, Defendant - Appellee, and NORWEST BANK NEBRASKA, N.A., Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-99-195-A) Submitted: March 23, 2001 Decided: April 24, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2441 MARY JO WILHELMJ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FIRST BANK, Defendant - Appellee, and NORWEST BANK NEBRASKA, N.A., Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-99-195-A) Submitted: March 23, 2001 Decided: April 24, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Jo Wilhelmj, Appellant Pro Se. David Ira Bledsoe, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Mary Jo Wilhelmj appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to reinstate her cases against Norwest Bank and US Bank (formerly First Bank). In addition to referencing her substantive claims against these institutions, Wilhelmj, in her docketing statement and informal brief, raises new claims relating to a Wash- ington Post newspaper article and the existence of certain high technology military weaponry. To the extent that Wilhelmj is challenging the district court’s order denying her motion to reinstate, we have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wilhelmj v. First Bank, No. CA-99-195-A (E.D. Va. Oct. 6, 2000). To the extent that she is raising new claims, such claims may not be raised for the first time in this court. Accordingly, we express no opinion as to these new assertions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer