U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1998

Stone v. Sullivan's Auto Body

Stone v. Sullivan's Auto Body
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided July 21, 1998

Stone v. Sullivan's Auto Body

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1273

HALLIE N. STONE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

SULLIVAN’S AUTO BODY, (Trading as) its assign- ees, and for successors in interest; RICHARD L. SULLIVAN, JR., Owner, individually in his private capacity; JOHN RICE, Manager, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-483-A)

Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 21, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hallie N. Stone, Appellant Pro Se. Richard L. Sullivan, Jr., John Rice, Fredericksburg, Virginia, Appellees; Mary Gillen Fenske, KAL- BAUGH, PFUND & MESSERSMITH, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Hallie N. Stone appeals the district court’s orders (1) dis- missing her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (2) denying her motion for reconsideration and to amend her complaint, (3) denying her motion for “a rule to show cause why [the Defen- dants’ attorney] should not be held in criminal contempt.” Our review of the record and the district court’s opinions discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Stone v. Sullivan’s Auto Body, No. CA-97-483-A (E.D. Va. Dec. 5, 1997; Jan. 9 & Jan. 16, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.