Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Yan Donovan v. EPA, 15-1960 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 15-1960 Visitors: 23
Filed: Dec. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1960 YAN DONOVAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Office of Pesticide Programs, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-00178-TSE-MSN) Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015 Before DIAZ and
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1960 YAN DONOVAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Office of Pesticide Programs, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cv-00178-TSE-MSN) Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 21, 2015 Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Yan Donovan, Appellant Pro Se. David Moskowitz, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Yan Donovan appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Donovan v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 1:15-cv-00178-TSE-MSN (E.D. Va. filed June 26, 2015 & entered June 29, 2015). However, we affirm as modified to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice to Donovan’s right to refile in the event she exhausts her administrative remedies. 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 AS MODIFIED 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