Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 0 views

    Parker v. Chinnery, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Gearlean Parker's case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Parker sued Dr. Lind Chinnery but failed to allege any basis for federal jurisdiction in her complaint. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for dismissal. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal arguments were clear in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Parker v. Chinnery, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Gearlean Parker's case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Parker sued Dr. Lind Chinnery but failed to allege any basis for federal jurisdiction in her complaint. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for dismissal. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal arguments were clear in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-10-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-1755

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Gearlean Parker's case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Parker sued Dr. Lind Chinnery but failed to allege any basis for federal jurisdiction in her complaint. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for dismissal. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal arguments were clear in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    0 views2 pages

    Parker v. Chinnery, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Gearlean Parker's case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Parker sued Dr. Lind Chinnery but failed to allege any basis for federal jurisdiction in her complaint. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's reasoning for dismissal. The appellate court dispensed with oral arguments, as the facts and legal arguments were clear in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-1755

    GEARLEAN B. PARKER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    DR. LIND W. CHINNERY,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News.
    Raymond A. Jackson,
    District Judge. (CA-05-3-4)

    Submitted:

    October 20, 2005

    Decided:

    October 26, 2005

    Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Gearlean B. Parker, Appellant Pro Se.


    Darren Thomas Marting,
    LECLAIR RYAN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Gearlean B. Parker appeals the district court's order
    dismissing her action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
    because she failed to allege any basis for federal jurisdiction.
    We

    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See


    Parker v. Chinnery, No. CA-05-3-4 (E.D. Va. June 16, 2005).

    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

    - 2 -

    You might also like