Nora Soto Gutierrez v. East Beach-Bay Marine Marina, Inc.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2326
NORA SOTO GUTIERREZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EAST BEACH-BAY MARINE MARINA, INC.; BLANDINE ESPEJO, in
capacity as manager; STEPHEN J. GREGORY, in capacity as
manager; VININGS MARINE, INC.; BRIAN PARKER, in capacity as
manager; CUTTY SARK MARINA, CO-OWNER/COOK JANE DOE; THE CITY
OF NORFOLK, VIRGINIA; OFFICER CROWDER, In capacity of Chief
of Investigations - Norfolk Police Dept.; CAPTAIN A. M.
POMERANZ, Norfolk Police Dept.; CINDY HALL, In capacity of
Asst. City Atty.; W. G. SNYDER, In Capacity of Police
Officer; OFFICER LOGAN, Norfolk Police Department; VA DEPT.
OF GAME & INLAND FISHERIES; DORITA ADAMS, as head of boat
titling dept.; JOHN EVANS, as boat titling agent; CINDY
MORGAN, as boat titling agent; ESPEJO, friend or associate;
JANE DOE; U.S. POSTAL WORKER JOHN DOE; G. C. WALL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:14-cv-00476-RAJ-LRL)
Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: April 21, 2016
Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Nora Soto Gutierrez, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Duncan
Pitchford, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia; Marissa Marriott Henderson, VENTKER WARMAN HENDERSON,
PLLC, Norfolk, Virginia; Douglas Fredericks, Virginia Beach,
Virginia; Heather Ann Mullen, CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Nora Soto Gutierrez appeals the district court’s order
dismissing her civil action and denying her motion for leave to
file a third amended complaint. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Gutierrez v. E. Beach-Bay
Marine Marina, No. 2:14-cv-00476-RAJ-LRL (E.D. Va. Sept. 23,
2015). 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 of 3 --