Case Name: Bridget ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee, and Laura Brown; Susan Fisher; Masood Memon; John Brehm; Tanveer Malik; Francinia Little; Steve Shupak; Al Rouse; Mike Fulkerson, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-22
Citations: 85 F. App'x 319
Docket Number: No. 03-2182
Parties: Bridget ALLEN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant—Appellee, and Laura Brown; Susan Fisher; Masood Memon; John Brehm; Tanveer Malik; Francinia Little; Steve Shupak; Al Rouse; Mike Fulkerson, Defendants.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 85
Pages: 319–319

Head Matter:
Bridget ALLEN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant—Appellee, and Laura Brown; Susan Fisher; Masood Memon; John Brehm; Tanveer Malik; Francinia Little; Steve Shupak; Al Rouse; Mike Fulkerson, Defendants.
No. 03-2182.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 5, 2003.
Decided Dec. 22, 2003.
Bridget Allen, Appellant pro se. Anita Claire Snyder, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Bridget Allen appeals the magistrate judge's order denying her motion to amend her complaint and the district court's order dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, her defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We dismiss Allen's appeal of the denial of her motion to amend for failure to timely object to the magistrate judge's order and for failure to file a transcript of the hearing on the matter. Furthermore, we affirm dismissal of Mien's defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims for the reasons stated by the district court. See Allen v. United States, No. CA-03-701-A (E.D.Va. July 21, 2003). 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART