Case Name: Starsha SEWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas P. DORE, Substitute Trustee; Mark S. Devan, Substitute Trustee; Shannon Menapace, Substitute Trustee; Kristen K. Haskins, Substitute Trustee; Gerard Francis Miles, Jr.; E. Gloth, Substitute Trustee, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-12
Citations: 560 F. App'x 212
Docket Number: No. 13-2239
Parties: Starsha SEWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas P. DORE, Substitute Trustee; Mark S. Devan, Substitute Trustee; Shannon Menapace, Substitute Trustee; Kristen K. Haskins, Substitute Trustee; Gerard Francis Miles, Jr.; E. Gloth, Substitute Trustee, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 560
Pages: 212–212

Head Matter:
Starsha SEWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas P. DORE, Substitute Trustee; Mark S. Devan, Substitute Trustee; Shannon Menapace, Substitute Trustee; Kristen K. Haskins, Substitute Trustee; Gerard Francis Miles, Jr.; E. Gloth, Substitute Trustee, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-2239.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 24, 2014.
Decided: March 12, 2014.
Starsha Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Brandon Matthew Kilberg, Covahey, Boozer, Devan & Dore, PA, Hunt Valley, Maryland; Gerard Francis Miles, Huesman, Jones & Miles, LLC, Hunt Valley, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Starsha Sewell appeals the district court's order denying her Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sewell v. Dore, No. 8:12-cv-02889-AW (D.Md. Oct. 1, 2013). We grant leave to proceed in forma pau-peris and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.