Dorarena Boyd v. Norfolk General District Court, No. 18-1947 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1947 DORARENA BOYD, Power of Attorney and Executive of the Estate of the living Matthew McLean, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NORFOLK GENERAL DISTRICT COURT, Traffic Division, Criminal Division, Civil Division, Juvenile Court; DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES LAW ENFORCEMENT, Commissioner; POLICE DEPARTMENT INTERNAL AFFAIRS, Professional of standard; GRAND BRAND; NORFOLK POLICE DEPARTMENT, Fraudulent Economic Crime; JEFF KARBERG, Director, Maryland Attorney General, Identity Theft Program; AUTO BARN, INC.; MARJIE WHITE; LISA SPERILL; BRANDON, Millbrook Park Apartment; SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INCORPORATED; DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICE; OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, Consumer Protection Division; VIRGINIA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT, Photo Safe Program; PHOTO SAFE PROGRAM; BRANCH BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, BB&T; LANGLEY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; JUDICIAL INQUIRY AND REVIEW COMMISSION; VIRGINIA STATE BAR; CHESAPEAKE PROBATION; NORFOLK PROBATION AND PAROLE; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; NORFOLK DIVISION; VITAL RECORDS AND HEALTH STATISTIC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:18-cv-00254-RAJ-DEM) Submitted: December 18, 2018 Decided: January 3, 2019 Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dorarena Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Dorarena Boyd appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Boyd v. Norfolk Gen. Dist. Ct., No. 2:18-cv-00254-RAJ-DEM (E.D. Va. July 31, 2018). We deny Boyd’s motion for an emergency hearing and for discovery and 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.