Katherine Robinson v. Chesapeake Bank of Maryland, No. 18-1473 (4th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1473 KATHERINE B. ROBINSON; DANA B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CHESAPEAKE BANK OF MARYLAND; PROCTOR FINANCIAL, INC., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:16-cv-04119-CCB) Submitted: August 16, 2018 Decided: August 20, 2018 Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Katherine B. Robinson, Dana B. Williams, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Appellants have filed this appeal purporting to challenge a 2014 state court order dismissing a state law property damage claim. We lack jurisdiction to review the state court’s order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012) (“The courts of appeals (other than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States . . . .”); see also Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983) (recognizing that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders). To the extent Appellants seek to challenge this court’s 2017 order dismissing as interlocutory a previous challenge to the district court’s dismissal of the underlying federal action, see Robinson v. Chesapeake Bank of Md., 691 F. App’x 782 (4th Cir. 2017) (No. 17-1217), Appellants have already asked this court to revisit that order, and we dismissed that appeal as duplicative and untimely, see Robinson v. Chesapeake Bank of Md., 703 F. App’x 212 (4th Cir. 2017) (No. 17-1796). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and as duplicative and untimely. 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 in the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

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.