Nora Gutierrez v. East Beach-Bay Marine Marina, No. 15-2326 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2326 NORA SOTO GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. EAST BEACH-BAY MARINE MARINA, INC.; BLANDINE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: Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. April 21, 2016 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Nora Soto Gutierrez appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action and denying her motion for leave to file a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. find no reversible error. We have reviewed the record and Accordingly, reasons stated by the district court. Marine Marina, 2015). legal before No. we affirm for the Gutierrez v. E. Beach-Bay 2:14-cv-00476-RAJ-LRL (E.D. Va. Sept. 23, We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.