Court Opinion

ID: 9375105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 21:01:13.083918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.774476
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1710     Doc: 42        Filed: 02/23/2023   Pg: 1 of 3

                                           UNPUBLISHED

                             UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                             No. 21-1710

        JESSICA LYNNE REAVIS,

                           Plaintiff - Appellant,

        JERRY O’NEIL,

                           Appellant,

                     v.

        PAUL GAMMON; SHARON GAMMON; DIESEL ENGINE & EQUIPMENT
        REPAIR; JOHN DOES 1-20,

                           Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Danville. Thomas T. Cullen, District Judge. (4:21-cv-00006-TTC)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                             Decided: February 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jessica Lynne Reavis; Jerry O’Neil, Appellants Pro Se. Clinton Wes Verity, HARMAN
        CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellees.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1710      Doc: 42         Filed: 02/23/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1710      Doc: 42         Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Jessica Lynne Reavis and Jerry O’Neil (collectively, Appellants) appeal the district

        court’s orders denying their motions to substitute parties and to reconsider. We have

        reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err. We therefore affirm

        the district court’s orders. Reavis v. Gammon, No. 4:21-cv-00006-TTC (W.D. Va. Apr. 27

        & May 25, 2021). We also deny all pending motions. 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

                                                     3