Hobby v. Beneficial Household, No. 05-2006 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2006 GERALDINE TALLEY HOBBY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BENEFICIAL/HOUSEHOLD MEMBER GLASSER AND GLASSER LAW FIRM, HSBC GROUP; Defendants - Appellees. No. 05-2007 GERALDINE TALLEY HOBBY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF LOGAN PARK, Logan Park Group Corporation; GEORGE PASTOR GEORGE SPICER; MRS. SPICER; RENEE CRANDALL BAKER; MICHAEL BAKER, Deacon; UNKNOWN, An unknown party who attended the sale and any additional parties who were involved in the acquisition of my family property, for the purpose of demolishing for a parking lot - namely Trustees, Defendants - Appellees. No. 05-2008 GERALDINE TALLEY HOBBY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BENEFICIAL; CITY OF NORFOLK, City Attorney; THE NORFOLK PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM; DIVISION OF NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION; FIRE MARSHALL DIVISION; DEPARTMENT OF UTILITIES, Division of Water Accounts; TITUSTOWN CIVIC LEAGUE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-05-238-JBF-TEM; CA-05-247-JBF-TEM; CA-05-274-JBF-FBS) Submitted: May 18, 2006 Decided: May 25, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Geraldine Talley Hobby, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Geraldine Hobby seeks to appeal from the district court s orders denying her motions to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing her civil actions for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hobby v. Beneficial Household No. CA-05-238-JBF-TEM; Hobby v. First Baptist Church, No. CA-05-247-JBF-TEM, Hobby v. Beneficial, No. CA-05-274-JBF-FBS (E.D. Va. Aug. 12, 2005). We grant Hobby s motions to amend and file her informal brief out of time and deny her motion to transfer and for appointment of counsel. 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 - 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.