Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Snowden v. Heaslewood, 09-1367 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-1367 Visitors: 37
Filed: Feb. 02, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1367 EARLENE M. SNOWDEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CLAUDINE HEASLEWOOD; SHAPIRO & BURSON, LLP; SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:08-cv-00674-DKC) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: February 2, 2010 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cu
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1367 EARLENE M. SNOWDEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CLAUDINE HEASLEWOOD; SHAPIRO & BURSON, LLP; SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (8:08-cv-00674-DKC) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: February 2, 2010 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Earlene M. Snowden, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Barry Fisher, Scott R. Robinson, FISHER LAW GROUP, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Earlene M. Snowden appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss and denying Snowden’s motion for summary judgment, application for writ of audita querela, emergency application for ex parte temporary injunction, and motion for subpoena. Snowden has also filed in this court a motion for summary judgment, seeking judgment against Defendant on the basis of fraud and theft. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order for the reasons stated by the district court. Snowden v. Heaslewood, No. 8:08-cv-00674- DKC (D. Md. March 23, 2009). We also deny Snowden’s motion for summary judgment. 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 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