Court Opinion

ID: 1002955
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:18:50.061365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:23.957795
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 00-1158

In Re: A. H. ROBINS COMPANY, INCORPORATED,

                                                             Debtor.

ELLEN PAULETTE M. FIELDS,

                                             Claimant - Appellant,

          versus

DALKON SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST,

                                                    Trust - Appellee.

                            No. 00-2279

In Re: A. H. ROBINS COMPANY, INCORPORATED,

                                                             Debtor.

ELLEN PAULETTE M. FIELDS,

                                             Claimant - Appellant,

          versus

DALKON SHIELD CLAIMANTS TRUST,

                                                    Trust - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.
(CA-85-1307-R)

Submitted:   October 31, 2000         Decided:   November 16, 2000

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ellen Paulette M. Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Orran Lee Brown, Sr.,
BOWMAN & BROOKE, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

                                2
PER CURIAM:

     Ellen Paulette M. Fields appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing these actions for failure to state a claim upon which

relief could be granted.     We have reviewed the record and the

district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.    See Fields v.

Dalkon Shield Trust, No. CA-85-1307-R (E.D. Va. Jan. 27, 2000,

Sept. 21, 2000).   Fields’ motions for preparation of transcript at

government expense and for payment of all damages are denied.   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

                                 3