Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-07-02949/USCOURTS-ca3-07-02949-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joanne Boyd
Appellant
Wachovia Bank NA
Appellee

Document Text:

1

BLD-78 

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2949

___________

JOANNE BOYD,

 Appellant

 v.

WACHOVIA BANK NA AS TRUSTEE FOR

PA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-02032)

District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

December 6, 2007

Before: SCIRICA, MCKEE, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 21, 2008)

_________

 OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Case: 07-2949 Document: 003110512 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2008
 Boyd has another appeal pending before this Court, C.A. No. 07-3525, arising 1

from the District Court’s order denying relief on another action filed at docket number

E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 07-cv-02033. The matters were consolidated for disposition by

Clerk’s Order entered September 26, 2007, but we will address the other appeal

separately.

 Boyd’s “motion for affirmative relief” contains her objection to the September 2

26, 2007 Clerk’s Order consolidating her two appeals for disposition. As noted above,

we shall address the matters separately. We note that Boyd filed a “Motion For Leave

For Stay And Injunction” in this appeal, which this Court denied on December 5, 2007.

2

Joanne Boyd appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Pennsylvania denying relief on the action she filed in that court. We

will affirm the District Court’s order.

Boyd initiated her action in District Court by filing a “petition for notice of

appeal,” which named Wachovia Bank, N.A. (“Wachovia”) as the respondent and sought

review of a March 19, 2007 action by the United States Supreme Court. The District

Court sua sponte denied the petition for failure to comply with Rule 3 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires the filing of a complaint to commence a civil

action, and noted that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to review a decision of

the United States Supreme Court. Boyd appeals. Wachovia has filed a motion for 1

summary affirmance of the District Court’s order and a motion for leave to file a

memorandum brief on appeal, to which Boyd has filed a response. Boyd has also filed a

“motion for affirmative relief” as an additional response to Wachovia’s motion.2

We will summarily affirm the order of the District Court pursuant to Third Circuit

LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6, because it appears that no substantial question is presented by

Case: 07-2949 Document: 003110512 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2008
this appeal. We are free to affirm the District Court’s judgment on any basis supported by

the record. Fairview Township v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 773 F.2d 517, 525

n.15 (3d Cir. 1985). Boyd asserts that the District Court’s dismissal of her action was

erroneous and was contrary to several procedural rules, including Rules 9(e), 52, and 58

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, we agree with the District Court that it

does not sit as an appellate court to review an action by the United States Supreme Court. 

The federal procedural rules upon which Boyd relies do not support her position.

For the foregoing reasons, we grant Wachovia’s motion for summary action and

will summarily affirm the order of the District Court. Wachovia’s motion for leave to file

a memorandum brief is denied as moot.

3

Case: 07-2949 Document: 003110512 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/21/2008