Case ID: f-appx_530/html/0250-01.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

Hieda A. KEELER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Police Chief James D. FOX; Officer Thomas A. Shull, Jr.; Officer David Green; Officer Justin Briggs; Officer Michelle Rivera; Sergeant John Polak; Lieutenant Sutton; Detective M. Johnson; Officer Hose H. Hernandez-Zamora; Captain Larry Minkoff; Newport News Sheriff's Department; Sheriff Gabe Morgan; Sheriff Male, responded to Riverside; Sheriff Female, responded to Riverside; Virginia Beach Psychiatric Center; Dr. Stephen G. Cunningham; Dr. Mark G. Clarke; Attorney Judith Dockery; Attorney Chad Dorsk; Officer Neidengard; Officer Juneau; Sergeant Hines; Officer Hankins; Paul Compton, Virginia State Police Trooper; Tony Passaro, Virginia State Police Trooper; Darrell Hollowell, Virginia State Police Trooper; Female EMT, Newport News EMT; male EMT, Newport News EMT; City of Newport News, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-1328.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 20, 2013.
    Decided: June 25, 2013.
    Hieda A. Keeler, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff W. Rosen, Pender & Coward, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Rodney Seth Dill-man, Hancock, Daniel, Johnson & Nagle, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Megan Pau-lita Bradshaw, Dante Medardo Filetti, Goodman, Allen & Filetti, PLLC, Norfolk, Virginia; Farnaz Farkish, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia; Joshua James Coe, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Darlene P. Bradberry, Office of the City Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellees.
    
      Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Hieda A. Keeler appeals the district court’s order denying her “Motion to deny Consent Order Granting Substitution of Attorney,” “Motion for Hearing,” and “Motion for Recusal,” and dismissing her civil action for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Keeler v. Fox, No. 2:12-cv-00325-AWA-TEM (E.D.Va. Feb. 19, 2013). 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.