Court Opinion

ID: 1004191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:37:43.00038+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:30.969924
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
 

  Mary Jo Wilhelmj appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to reinstate her cases against Norwest Bank and U.S. Bank (formerly First Bank). In addition to referencing her substantive claims against these institutions, Wilhelmj, in her docketing statement and informal brief, raises new claims relating to a Washington Post newspaper article and the existence of certain high technology military weaponry.
 

  To the extent that Wilhelmj is challenging the district court’s order denying her motion to reinstate, we have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
   
   *140
   
  affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
  
   Wilhelmj v. First Bank,
  
  No. CA-99-195-A (E.D.Va. Oct. 6, 2000). To the extent that she is raising new claims, such claims may not be raised for the first time in this court. Accordingly, we express no opinion as to these new assertions. 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.