Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lisa Krupczak v. DLA Piper LLP (US), 16-1980 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-1980 Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 19, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1980 LISA A. KRUPCZAK, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DLA PIPER LLP (US); UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-00023-WMN) Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 19, 2016 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1980 LISA A. KRUPCZAK, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DLA PIPER LLP (US); UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:16-cv-00023-WMN) Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 19, 2016 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lisa A. Krupczak, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Evelyn Lewis, James Patrick Ulwick, KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; Scott Michael Trager, SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lisa A. Krupczak appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss her civil action and denying leave to amend her complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Krupczak v. DLA Piper LLP (US), No. 1:16-cv-00023-WMN (D. Md. July 27, 2016). We deny Krupczak’s motion to appoint counsel and 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