Katherine Robinson v. DOJ/DEA, No. 17-1036 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1036 KATHERINE B. ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, and DANA B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, (DOJ/DEA); VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:16-cv-03850-DKC) Submitted: April 20, 2017 Decided: April 25, 2017 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Katherine B. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Katherine B. Robinson appeals the district court’s order dismissing on res judicata grounds her civil complaint against the Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration and the Virginia Employment Commission, and the district court’s order issuing a pre-filing injunction against Robinson for her repeated filing of similar complaints against these Defendants. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Robinson’s opening and supplemental informal briefs do not challenge the basis for the district court’s dispositive rulings, Robinson has forfeited appellate review of the district court’s orders. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004); see also Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (failure to raise issue in opening brief constitutes abandonment of that issue). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. See Robinson v. DOJ/DEA, No. 8:16-cv-03850-DKC (D. Md. Dec. 22, 2016 & Jan. 3, 2017). 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.