Case ID: f-appx_326/html/0166-01.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

Jilla N. VANOVER, RN, BSN, BA, Plaintiff—Appellant, and Angeltouch Home Healthcare Services, Incorporated, Plaintiff, v. Alan SHAMS; Cynthia Shams; Charles James Swedish, Attorney at Law; Bank of New York; Samuel I. White, PC; Adams White; Eric White; J. Silver, Mr.; R. Lueck, Mr., Revenue Officer, AGM; MR. Conte, Collector; Deborah C. Stanley, Ms., Associate Area Council in Richmond; Michael Leniham, Mr. Technical Service Advisory Group Manager; Mrs. Hana, Auditor; Mrs. Carr, Supervisor of Auditors; Fatemeh Najafian, Ms., Md; Thomas Kim, Mr., Special Agent, Special Inquiries and Intelligence Division, Department of Treasury, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 09-1016.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 28, 2009.
    Decided: June 5, 2009.
    Jilla N. Vanover, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Todd Freeman, Samuel I. White, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Ronald James Guillot, Jr., Samuel I. White, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Jonathan S. Cohen, Christine Durney Mason, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Robert K. Coulter, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jilla N. Vanover appeals the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1916(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Vanover v. Shams, No. 1:08-cv-01037-LMBIDD (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 23, 2008 & entered Oct. 23, 2008; Oct. 28, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-. ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.