Lena Hardaway v. Checkers Drive-in Restaurants, Inc.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2219
LENA HARDAWAY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CHECKERS DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS, INC.,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
CHECKERS/RALLY RESTAURANT; ADVENTURES THREE INC.;
DOUGLAS S. GORDON INSURANCE SERVICES; JOHN DOE INSURANCE
COMPANY; IMOGENE F. HOLMES; DOES 1-25,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:11-cv-01575-RWT)
Submitted: March 24, 2016 Decided: April 5, 2016
Before KING, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lena Hardaway, Appellant Pro Se. Richard E. Schimel, BREGMAN,
BERBERT, SCHWARTZ & GILDAY, LLC, Bethesda, Maryland, for
Appellee.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Lena Hardaway appeals from the district court’s order
dismissing her complaint without prejudice for want of
prosecution. On appeal, Hardaway asserts that the district
court did not properly update her address and that she did not
timely receive the district court’s order to show cause. We
affirm.
Hardaway claims that she filed a complaint against a
district court judge with the Justice Department on August 17,
2015, and filed an additional complaint with the Chief Judge of
the District of Maryland on August 28, 2015. Hardaway asserts
that she placed a change of address form in the envelope to the
Chief Judge. Hardaway does not provide any documentary proof of
these claims.
It appears that Hardaway’s “complaints” were in a separate
case or were an attempt to open an investigation or another
case. These documents are not filed in the instant case. The
United States District Court for the District of Maryland Rule
102(b)(iii) requires self-represented litigants to file change
of address forms with the Clerk in every case in which they
currently have an address where case-related papers may be
served. Even assuming that the document Hardaway references was
a change of address form for the instant case, Hardaway states

-- 3 of 4 --

4
that she sent it to the Chief Judge rather than the Clerk of the
Court.
Moreover, on appeal, Hardaway presents no showing of good
cause for her failure to pursue her case, so any error by the
district court was merely harmless. The district court granted
in part Hardaway’s motion to compel on September 16, 2013, and
Hardaway did not file another document in her case until her
notice of appeal on October 9, 2015. While she claims there was
much misconduct in her case, she does not allege that she
specifically attempted to file documents after September 2013,
nor does she explain her failure to prosecute her case during
that time period. Finally, while Hardaway raises numerous other
claims on appeal, we find that they are irrelevant to the basis
for dismissal.
Accordingly, we affirm. 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

-- 4 of 4 --