Filed: Aug. 14, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1385 MAI CHAPPEL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CHRISTINA COOPOCK, Executive Mortgage Specialist of Wells Fargo Bank, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:13-cv-00084-JRS) Submitted: August 6, 2013 Decided: August 14, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1385 MAI CHAPPEL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CHRISTINA COOPOCK, Executive Mortgage Specialist of Wells Fargo Bank, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:13-cv-00084-JRS) Submitted: August 6, 2013 Decided: August 14, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1385 MAI CHAPPEL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CHRISTINA COOPOCK, Executive Mortgage Specialist of Wells Fargo Bank, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:13-cv-00084-JRS) Submitted: August 6, 2013 Decided: August 14, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mai Chappel, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mai Chappel appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) for failure to comply with a court order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Chappel v. Coopock, No. 3:13-cv-00084-JRS (E.D. Va. Mar. 5, 2013). 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
