Court Opinion

ID: 9372116
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 21:00:25.231182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:32.906170
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2006      Doc: 36         Filed: 02/16/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-2006

        MELINDA SCOTT,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        WISE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; JOSHUA MOON,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big
        Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (2:20-cv-00014-JPJ-PMS)

        Submitted: October 28, 2022                                  Decided: February 16, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Melinda L. Scott, Appellant Pro Se.          Matthew Hardin, HARDIN LAW OFFICE,
        Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2006         Doc: 36      Filed: 02/16/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Melinda Scott appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint.

        Defendant Joshua Moon moves to dismiss based on an order from the magistrate judge

        certifying under Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A) that this appeal was not taken in good faith.

        Because the district court did not adopt the certification and the parties did not consent to

        the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction, we deny Moon’s motions to dismiss.

               Nevertheless, upon review of the record, we agree with the district court’s

        determination that Scott failed to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional

        distress under Virginia law. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. In

        addition, we deny Scott’s motion to seal, we deny Moon’s motion for attorney’s fees and

        his motion to strike Scott’s reply to the motion for attorney’s fees, and we deny as moot

        Moon’s motion to dismiss a separate appeal, No. 22-1343, filed by Scott.

               We 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

                                                     2