Filed: Mar. 19, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1849 SANDRA ROBINSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. NIELSEN TV RATINGS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:10-cv-00009-JRS) Submitted: January 28, 2013 Decided: March 19, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sandra Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. John M.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1849 SANDRA ROBINSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. NIELSEN TV RATINGS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:10-cv-00009-JRS) Submitted: January 28, 2013 Decided: March 19, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sandra Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. John M. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-1849 SANDRA ROBINSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. NIELSEN TV RATINGS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:10-cv-00009-JRS) Submitted: January 28, 2013 Decided: March 19, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sandra Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. John M. Barr, Crystal L. Norrick, JACKSON LEWIS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sandra Robinson appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to file a belated appeal. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Robinson v. Nielsen TV Ratings, No. 3:10-cv-00009-JRS (E.D. Va. June 19, 2012). 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 2
