Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Starsha Sewell v. Thomas Dore, 13-2239 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-2239 Visitors: 44
Filed: Mar. 12, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2239 STARSHA SEWELL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. THOMAS P. DORE, Substitute Trustee; MARK S. DEVAN, Substitute Trustee; SHANNON MENAPACE, Substitute Trustee; KRISTEN K. HASKINS, Substitute Trustee; GERARD FRANCIS MILES, JR.; E. GLOTH, Substitute Trustee, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:12-cv-02889-AW) S
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2239 STARSHA SEWELL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. THOMAS P. DORE, Substitute Trustee; MARK S. DEVAN, Substitute Trustee; SHANNON MENAPACE, Substitute Trustee; KRISTEN K. HASKINS, Substitute Trustee; GERARD FRANCIS MILES, JR.; E. GLOTH, Substitute Trustee, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:12-cv-02889-AW) Submitted: February 24, 2014 Decided: March 12, 2014 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Starsha Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Brandon Matthew Kilberg, COVAHEY, BOOZER, DEVAN & DORE, PA, Hunt Valley, Maryland; Gerard Francis Miles, HUESMAN, JONES & MILES, LLC, Hunt Valley, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Starsha Sewell appeals the district court’s order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sewell v. Dore, No. 8:12-cv-02889-AW (D. Md. Oct. 1, 2013). We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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 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