Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Starsha Sewell v. WMATA, 15-2405 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 15-2405 Visitors: 20
Filed: Dec. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2405 STARSHA SEWELL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, (WMATA), Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:15-cv-01334-TDC) Submitted: December 18, 2015 Decided: December 23, 2015 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Starsha
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2405 STARSHA SEWELL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, (WMATA), Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:15-cv-01334-TDC) Submitted: December 18, 2015 Decided: December 23, 2015 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Starsha Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Gerard J. Stief, Associate General Counsel, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Starsha Sewell appeals the district court’s orders dismissing this action without prejudice for failure to serve process and denying her motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Sewell v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., No. 8:15-cv-01334-TDC (D. Md. Oct. 22 & Nov. 2, 2015). We deny the motions to transfer and to strike the Defendant’s response. 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. DISMISSED 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