Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jones v. United States, 04-1897 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1897 Visitors: 20
Filed: Feb. 11, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1897 PAMELA MARIA JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Joseph R. McCrorey, Magistrate Judge. (CA-01-3586-5-26BC) Submitted: January 19, 2005 Decided: February 11, 2005 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1897 PAMELA MARIA JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Joseph R. McCrorey, Magistrate Judge. (CA-01-3586-5-26BC) Submitted: January 19, 2005 Decided: February 11, 2005 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pamela Maria Jones, Appellant Pro Se. John Douglas Barnett, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Pamela Maria Jones appeals the district court’s orders awarding to Jones damages in the amount of $12,068.65, plus post- judgment interest to accrue according to law on her civil action filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jones v. United States, No. CA-01-3586-5-26BC (D.S.C. May 18, 20 & 28, 2004). We deny Jones’ motion to file an oversize brief to the extent Jones seeks to have this court consider evidence not first presented to the district court. We further deny Jones’ pending motions for general relief and to expedite her appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 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