Case ID: f-appx_96/html/0151-02.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

Sheila WEIR, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Tyrone P. CURTIS, Executive Director; Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 03-2238.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 27, 2004.
    Decided May 4, 2004.
    
      Sheila Weir, Appellant pro se. William Harrison Baxter, II, McGuirewoods, L.LP., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Sheila Weir appeals the magistrate judge’s order imposing $500 sanctions, enjoining her from filing any future lawsuits until the sanction is paid in full, and dismissing her civil action with prejudice for failure to prosecute. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

To the extent that Weir appeals the district court’s denial of her motion to withdraw her consent to have a magistrate judge preside over her case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (2000), we find no error in the district court’s finding that Weir failed to establish “extraordinary circumstances” sufficient to withdraw the reference to the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4) (2000); Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir.1993); Fellman v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 735 F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir.1984). We further find no merit to Weir’s claim that the magistrate judge did not have authority to impose sanctions against her. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(4) (2000).

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. See Weir v. Curtis, No. CA-03-4 (E.D.Va. Oct. 2, 2003). We grant Weir’s motion to amend her informal brief. 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