Case ID: f-appx_639/html/0179-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nora Soto GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EAST BEACH-BAY MARINE MARINA, INC.; Blandine Espejo, in capacity as manager; Stephen J. Gregory, in capacity as manager; Vinings Marine, Inc.; Brian Parker, in capacity as manager; Cutty Sark Marina, Co-Owner/Cook Jane Doe; The City of Norfolk, Virginia; Officer Crowder, In capacity of Chief of Investigations-Norfolk Police Dept.; Captain A.M. Pomeranz, Norfolk Police Dept.; Cindy Hall, In capacity of Asst. City Atty.; W.G. Snyder, In Capacity of Police Officer; Officer Logan, Norfolk Police Department; VA Dept. of Game & Inland Fisheries; Dorita Adams, as head of boat titling dept.; John Evans, as boat titling agent; Cindy Morgan, as boat titling agent; Espejo, friend or associate; Jane Doe; U.S. Postal Worker John Doe; G.C. Wall, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-2326.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 19, 2016.
    Decided: April 21, 2016.
    
      Nora Soto Gutierrez, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Duncan Pitchford, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia; Marissa Marriott Henderson, Ventker Warman Henderson, PLLC, Norfolk, Virginia; Douglas Fredericks, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Heather Ann Mullen, City Attorney’s Office, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Nora Soto Gutierrez appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action and denying her motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Gutierrez v. E. Beach-Bay Marine Marina, No. 2:14-cv-00476-RAJ-LRL (E.D.Va. Sept. 23, 2015). 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.