Case Name: Marla CRAWFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tony PHAM; Christopher Bullard; Mrs. Timmas; Tony Randall, Public Defender; Sandy Ledbetter; Christopher Collins, Esquire; Mr. Etherington; Horace Hunter, Mr. Esquire; DAVID LASSITER, Mr. Esquire, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-17
Citations: 204 F. App'x 331
Docket Number: No. 06-1556
Parties: Marla CRAWFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tony PHAM; Christopher Bullard; Mrs. Timmas; Tony Randall, Public Defender; Sandy Ledbetter; Christopher Collins, Esquire; Mr. Etherington; Horace Hunter, Mr. Esquire; DAVID LASSITER, Mr. Esquire, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 204
Pages: 331–332

Head Matter:
Marla CRAWFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tony PHAM; Christopher Bullard; Mrs. Timmas; Tony Randall, Public Defender; Sandy Ledbetter; Christopher Collins, Esquire; Mr. Etherington; Horace Hunter, Mr. Esquire; DAVID LASSITER, Mr. Esquire, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-1556.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 15, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 17, 2006.
Marla Crawford, Appellant Pro Se. William Woodul Tunner, Thompson & McMullan, Richmond, Virginia; Guy Winston Horsley, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Christopher Collins, Richmond, Virginia; William Kerfoot Lewis, Beale, Balfour, Davidson & Etherington, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Marla Crawford appeals the district court's order dismissing her civil action for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Crawford v. Pham, No. 3:06-cv-00209-HEH (E.D.Va. Apr. 12, 2006). 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.