Filed: Mar. 16, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2704 HANNAH VICTORIA GOLDSBOROUGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-97- 3650-MJG) Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 16, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hannah Victoria Golds
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2704 HANNAH VICTORIA GOLDSBOROUGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-97- 3650-MJG) Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 16, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hannah Victoria Goldsb..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-2704
HANNAH VICTORIA GOLDSBOROUGH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-97-
3650-MJG)
Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 16, 1998
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hannah Victoria Goldsborough, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Hanna Goldsborough appeals the district court's order dismiss-
ing her personal injury claim for damages filed under 28 U.S.C.A.
ยง 1332 (West 1993 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and
the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivo-
lous. Accordingly, we deny Goldsborough's motions to supplement the
record, deny her motion to expedite, and dismiss the appeal on the
reasoning of the district court. 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 deci-
sional process.
DISMISSED
2