Arlene Claiborne v. Liberty Mutual Company

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1967
ARLENE CLAIBORNE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL COMPANY,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
FRANKLIN W. WOODS; C.E. LONGEST TIMBERLANDS LLC, a/k/a
Mapledale, LLC; CARY E. LONGEST,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:22-cv-00345-HEH)
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arlene Claiborne, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua B. Goodwin, HARMAN CLAYTOR
CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Arlene Claiborne appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil diversity suit,
in which she sought damages for injuries resulting from a car accident, as barred by the
applicable two-year statute of limitations in Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-243(A) (2022). We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
The district court noted that the Supreme Court of Virginia tolled all statutes of
limitations between March 16, 2020, and July 19, 2020, because of COVID-19 but
concluded that the tolling provision did not apply because the two-year period for
Claiborne to file her suit ended on June 26, 2021. After the district court found that the
COVID-19 tolling provisions did not apply to Claiborne’s case, the Court of Appeals of
Virginia held that the “tolling provisions were not limited to deadlines that otherwise would
have expired” between March 16, 2020, and July 19, 2020. English v. Quinn, 880 S.E.2d
35, 39 (Va. Ct. App. 2022). Giving Claiborne the benefit of English, she had until Monday,
November 1, 2021, to file her claims. Therefore, her complaint—filed on April 28, 2022—
is still barred by the statute of limitations.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Claiborne v. Liberty Mut. Co.,
No. 3:22-cv-00345-HEH (E.D. Va. Aug. 24, 2022). We deny Claiborne’s motion for the
appointment of counsel and her motion for oral argument and/or an arbitration hearing.
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 --