Filed: Mar. 01, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2470 MARY JO WILHELMJ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FIRST BANK, Defendant - Appellee, and NORWEST BANK NEBRASKA, N.A., Defendant. No. 99-2639 MARY JO WILHELMJ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FIRST BANK, Defendant - Appellee, and NORWEST BANK NEBRASKA, N.A., Defendant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-99-195) S
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2470 MARY JO WILHELMJ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FIRST BANK, Defendant - Appellee, and NORWEST BANK NEBRASKA, N.A., Defendant. No. 99-2639 MARY JO WILHELMJ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FIRST BANK, Defendant - Appellee, and NORWEST BANK NEBRASKA, N.A., Defendant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-99-195) Su..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2470 MARY JO WILHELMJ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FIRST BANK, Defendant - Appellee, and NORWEST BANK NEBRASKA, N.A., Defendant. No. 99-2639 MARY JO WILHELMJ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FIRST BANK, Defendant - Appellee, and NORWEST BANK NEBRASKA, N.A., Defendant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-99-195) Submitted: February 24, 2000 Decided: March 1, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary Jo Wilhelmj, Appellant Pro Se. David Ira Bledsoe, Alexandria, Virginia for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: In No. 99-2740, Mary Jo Wilhelmj appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil diversity action in which she alleged that First Bank fraudulently mismanaged the trust established by her late husband. In No. 99-2639, Wilhelmj appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to reconsider and furnish new arguments. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court, and deny Wilhelmj’s motion for discovery. See Wilhelmj v. First Bank, Nos. CA-99-195-A; CA-99-195 (E.D. Va. Oct. 22 & Dec. 3, 1999). 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 3