Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Starsha Sewell v. Fidelity National Financial, 18-1094 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-1094 Visitors: 64
Filed: May 31, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1094 STARSHA SEWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, in care of Chicago Title Insurance Company, Milestone Title, LLC; CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY; MILESTONE TITLE, LLC, Defendants - Appellees. No. 18-1103 STARSHA M. SEWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, in care of Chicago Title Insurance Company, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1094 STARSHA SEWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, in care of Chicago Title Insurance Company, Milestone Title, LLC; CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY; MILESTONE TITLE, LLC, Defendants - Appellees. No. 18-1103 STARSHA M. SEWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, in care of Chicago Title Insurance Company, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:15-cv-03077-PWG; 8:15-cv-03392-PWG) Submitted: May 29, 2018 Decided: May 31, 2018 Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Starsha M. Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Michael William Tompkins, FIDELITY NATIONAL LAW GROUP, Vienna, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In each of these cases, which were consolidated on appeal, Starsha M. Sewell appeals the district court’s order, entered in accordance with a prefiling injunction, striking her motion to reopen and ordering the motion stricken from the district court’s docket. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sewell v. Fidelity Nat’l Fin. Inc., Nos. 8:15-cv-03077-PWG, 8:15-cv-03392-PWG (D. Md. Jan. 12, 2018). 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 3
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