Case Name: Faith Davenport WOOD, a/k/a Faith Davenport, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dewey L. ROBERTSON, Sr., Defendant-Appellee, v. United States of America, acting through its agent the Internal Revenue Service, Third Party Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-17
Citations: 122 F. App'x 49
Docket Number: No. 04-1711
Parties: Faith Davenport WOOD, a/k/a Faith Davenport, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Dewey L. ROBERTSON, Sr., Defendant—Appellee, v. United States of America, acting through its agent the Internal Revenue Service, Third Party Defendant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 122
Pages: 49–50

Head Matter:
Faith Davenport WOOD, a/k/a Faith Davenport, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Dewey L. ROBERTSON, Sr., Defendant—Appellee, v. United States of America, acting through its agent the Internal Revenue Service, Third Party Defendant.
No. 04-1711.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 19, 2005.
Decided: Feb. 17, 2005.
Orín G. Briggs, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellant.
James O. Spence, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Faith Davenport Wood appeals from the district court's orders dismissing her claims to property levied upon and sold by the Internal Revenue Service and denying her motion to alter or amend the judgment. We have reviewed the briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court's orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Wood v. Robertson, No. CA-04-265-8-20 (D.S.C. filed Apr. 8, entered Apr. 9, 2004 & filed Apr. 26, entered Apr. 27, 2004). 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