Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Park v. Lim, 06-2243 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-2243 Visitors: 20
Filed: Nov. 30, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2243 KYUNG HEE PARK, a/k/a Maria Kim, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SUK-KU LIM; NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:06-cv-00569-GBL) Submitted: October 31, 2007 Decided: November 30, 2007 Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirm
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2243 KYUNG HEE PARK, a/k/a Maria Kim, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SUK-KU LIM; NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:06-cv-00569-GBL) Submitted: October 31, 2007 Decided: November 30, 2007 Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kyung Hee Park, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Emery Draim, HUDGINS LAW FIRM, Alexandria, Virginia; Jennifer Eileen Dure, HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kyung Hee Park appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint alleging civil violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (2000), et seq. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.* Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Park v. Lim, No. 1:06-cv-00569-GBL (E.D. Va. May 12, 2006). 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 * Appellees have filed motions to strike Park’s reply brief. Because Park’s reply brief merely repeats her earlier claims and addresses matters that were not included in her informal brief, we grant Appellees’ motions to strike. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). - 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