Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Pammalla Uplinger v. US Investigations Services, 13-2250 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-2250 Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 04, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2250 PAMMALLA SHANNON UPLINGER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. US INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, Professional Services Corporation, Inc.; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Federal Protective Service, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00417-LO-TCB) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 4, 2014 Bef
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2250 PAMMALLA SHANNON UPLINGER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. US INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES, Professional Services Corporation, Inc.; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Federal Protective Service, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00417-LO-TCB) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 4, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pammalla Shannon Uplinger, Appellant Pro Se. Tyler Perry Brown, Tara Leigh Elgie, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Robert K. Coulter, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pammalla Shannon Uplinger appeals the district court’s orders affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders granting judgment in favor of Defendants in her adversary proceeding and denying her motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Uplinger v. United States Investigations Servs., No. 1:13-cv-00417-LO-TCB (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 13, 2013; entered Aug. 14, 2013). We deny Uplinger’s motions to supplement the record and for judicial notice. 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
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