Court Opinion

ID: 1002100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:05:52.854694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:27:09.642726
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

In Re: SHELLY ENGLAND LUCAS,
Appellant,

MICHELLE D. ADAMS,
Plaintiff,

v.

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
                                                               No. 00-1301
(CIA); UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ);
WILLIAM CASEY, Estate of; ROBERT
GATES; JOHN DEUTCH; GEORGE
TENET; WILLIAM FRENCH SMITH,
Estate of; EDWIN MEESE; RICHARD
THORNBURGH; JANET RENO; I-XXX
DOES; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
William L. Osteen, District Judge.
(CA-99-371-1)

Submitted: July 13, 2000

Decided: July 25, 2000

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

Shelly England Lucas, Appellant Pro Se.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Shelly England Lucas appeals the district court's order dismissing
a civil rights action filed by Michelle D. Adams for failure to show
proof of service on the Defendants within the required time period.
Lucas filed a notice of appeal, which the district court struck because
Lucas is neither a party to the lawsuit nor an attorney admitted to
practice law in the district court.

"It is well established that, `persons who are neither original parties
to, nor interveners in, district court proceedings ordinarily may not
appeal a judgment of the district court.'" Davis v. Scott, 176 F.3d 805,
807 (4th Cir. 1999) (quoting Kenny v. Quigg, 820 F.2d 665, 667 (4th
Cir. 1987)). An exception exists, however, when the person "ha[s] an
interest in the cause litigated and . . . [has] participated in the proceed-
ings actively enough to make him privy to the record." Id. (citation
omitted, brackets in original). Lucas is neither an original party nor
an intervener in this lawsuit. Further, Lucas fails to show that he has
an adequate interest in the cause litigated, particularly in light of the
frivolous nature of this action. We therefore conclude that Lucas does
not have standing to bring this appeal. Accordingly, we deny leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, deny Lucas' motion for counsel, deny
Lucas' motion for sanctions against the Defendants, and dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

                     2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED

                    3