The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
15-2019•Mary Sue Roberts v. Jay A. Roberts; Ashley Roberts McNamara
15-2019Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 18, 2016
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2019
MARY SUE ROBERTS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAY A. ROBERTS; ASHLEY ROBERTS MCNAMARA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger,
District Judge. (5:15-cv-02099)
Submitted: April 28, 2016 Decided: May 18, 2016
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Barry L. Bruce, BARRY L. BRUCE & ASSOCIATES, Lewisburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Michael R. Proctor, DINSMORE & SHOHL,
LLP, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Mary Sue Roberts appeals the district court’s order
dismissing her complaint filed in her Chapter 13 proceeding for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the
record included on appeal, as well as the parties’ briefs, and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Roberts v. Roberts, No.
5:15-cv-02099 (S.D. W. Va. Aug. 5, 2015). We deny Appellant’s
motion for judicial review. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.