In Re: Katherine Robinson v.

Fourth Circuit

In Re: Katherine Robinson v.

694 F. App'x 132

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 31, 2017

Docket17-1163

StatusUnpublished

This text of 694 F. App'x 132 (In Re: Katherine Robinson v.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re: Katherine Robinson v., 694 F. App'x 132 (4th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:'

Katherine B. Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing on res judicata grounds her civil complaint against the Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration and the Virginia Employment Commission, and the district court’s order issuing a prefiling injunction against Robinson for her repeated filing of similar complaints against these Defendants. This court affirmed the challenged orders by unpublished per cu-riam opinion filed on April 25, 2017, and the mandate in that appeal issued on June 19, 2017. See Robinson v. Dep’t of Justice Drug Enf't Admin., No. 17-1036, 686 Fed. Appx. 159, 2017 WL 1476151 (4th Cir. Apr. 25, 2017) (unpublished). Because we have previously affirmed the district court’s orders, this appeal is duplicative.

To the extent that Robinson’s appellate filings could be construed as a challenge to this court’s previous opinion affirming the district court’s orders, the time for filing a rehearing petition expired long ago. See Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1) (“Unless the time is shortened or extended by order or local rule, a petition for panel rehearing may be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment.”). Moreover, this court may recall its mandate to avoid injustice only in exceptional cases. See Alphin v. Henson, 552 F.2d 1033, 1035 (4th Cir. 1977). “The sparing use of the power demonstrates it is one of last resort, to be held in reserve against grave, unforeseen contingencies.” Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 550, 118 S.Ct. 1489, 140 L.Ed.2d 728 (1998). Robinson’s is not an exceptional case and, thus, the district court’s orders are not subject to relitigation before this court.

Accordingly, we deny Robinson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:'

Katherine B. Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing on res judicata grounds her civil complaint against the Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration and the Virginia Employment Commission, and the district court’s order issuing a prefiling injunction against Robinson for her repeated filing of similar complaints against these Defendants. This court affirmed the challenged orders by unpublished per cu-riam opinion filed on April 25, 2017, and the mandate in that appeal issued on June 19, 2017. See Robinson v. Dep’t of Justice Drug Enf't Admin., No. 17-1036, 686 Fed. Appx. 159, 2017 WL 1476151 (4th Cir. Apr. 25, 2017) (unpublished). Because we have previously affirmed the district court’s orders, this appeal is duplicative.

To the extent that Robinson’s appellate filings could be construed as a challenge to this court’s previous opinion affirming the district court’s orders, the time for filing a rehearing petition expired long ago. See Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1) (“Unless the time is shortened or extended by order or local rule, a petition for panel rehearing may be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment.”). Moreover, this court may recall its mandate to avoid injustice only in exceptional cases. See Alphin v. Henson, 552 F.2d 1033, 1035 (4th Cir. 1977). “The sparing use of the power demonstrates it is one of last resort, to be held in reserve against grave, unforeseen contingencies.” Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 550, 118 S.Ct. 1489, 140 L.Ed.2d 728 (1998). Robinson’s is not an exceptional case and, thus, the district court’s orders are not subject to relitigation before this court.

Accordingly, we deny Robinson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

694 F. App'x 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-katherine-robinson-v-ca4-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack