Filed: Mar. 25, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2453 CHRISTINE SANDRA MCLENDON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARRIS HOYT, Manager, Shelor Chevrolet; LIEUTENANT ALBERT; J. D. EPPERLY, Police Officer; SHAFFER AND STROMINGER, G.M.C., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-02-795) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2453 CHRISTINE SANDRA MCLENDON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARRIS HOYT, Manager, Shelor Chevrolet; LIEUTENANT ALBERT; J. D. EPPERLY, Police Officer; SHAFFER AND STROMINGER, G.M.C., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-02-795) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2453 CHRISTINE SANDRA MCLENDON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARRIS HOYT, Manager, Shelor Chevrolet; LIEUTENANT ALBERT; J. D. EPPERLY, Police Officer; SHAFFER AND STROMINGER, G.M.C., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CA-02-795) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christine Sandra McLendon, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Christine Sandra McLendon appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil suit for lack of jurisdiction and/or improper venue. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See McLendon v. Hoyt, No. CA-02-795 (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 1, 2002 & entered Nov. 4, 2002). We deny McLendon’s motion for 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 2
