Vanover v. Shams

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 5, 2009
• Docket: 09-1016
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1016

JILLA N. VANOVER, RN, BSN, BA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

ANGELTOUCH HOME HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAN SHAMS; CYNTHIA SHAMS; CHARLES JAMES SWEDISH, Attorney at Law; BANK OF NEW YORK; SAMUEL I. WHITE, PC; ADAMS WHITE; ERIC WHITE; J. SILVER, Mr.; R. LUECK, Mr., Revenue Officer, AGM; MR. CONTE, Collector; DEBORAH C. STANLEY, Ms., Associate Area Council in Richmond; MICHAEL LENIHAM, Mr. Technical Service Advisory Group Manager; MRS. HANA, Auditor; MRS. CARR, Supervisor of Auditors; FATEMEH NAJAFIAN, Ms., MD; THOMAS KIM, Mr., Special Agent, Special Inquiries and Intelligence Division, Department of Treasury,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:08-cv-01037-LMB-IDD)

Submitted: May 28, 2009 Decided: June 5, 2009

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jilla N. Vanover, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Todd Freeman, SAMUEL I. WHITE, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Ronald James Guillot, Jr., SAMUEL I. WHITE, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Jonathan S. Cohen, Christine Durney Mason, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Robert K. Coulter, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Jilla N. Vanover appeals the district court’s order

dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. Vanover v. Shams, No. 1:08-cv-01037-LMB-

IDD (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 23, 2008 & entered Oct. 23, 2008;

Oct. 28, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED