Lewanda Parthenia Epes v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 292 2005 , the district court properly…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-2045
LEWANDA PARTHENIA EPES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GREEN TREE FINANCIAL SERVICING CORPORATION;
KIRK D. MCQUIDDY, Law Office; SPECIALIZED,
INCORPORATED OF VIRGINIA; HAWTHORNE &
HAWTHORNE, Attorneys,
Defendants - Appellees.
-----------------------------------
CINDY PEARSON,
Movant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (3:04-cv-00455-REP)
Submitted: April 9, 2007 Decided: May 21, 2007
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lewanda Parthenia Epes, Appellant Pro Se. Brian R. M. Adams, Bryan
G. Scott, SPOTTS FAIN, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Mark Charles
Nanavati, SINNOTT, NUCKOLS & LOGAN, PC, Midlothian, Virginia;
Lawrence Alexis Dunn, MORRIS & MORRIS, Richmond, Virginia; Raymond

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Paul Childress, Jr., Michele Adams Mulligan, Kristie Gay Haynes,
MCSWEENEY, CRUMP, CHILDRESS & GOULD, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

*Although the district court was not deprived of subject
matter jurisdiction by the state court’s entry of judgment in
Epes’s parallel state action, see Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic
Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 292 (2005), the district court
properly dismissed this action with prejudice because it was
precluded by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Lewanda Parthenia Epes appeals the district court’s order
dismissing her civil action. We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellee Green Tree
Financial Servicing Corporation’s motion for sanctions and affirm
substantially on the reasoning of the district court.* See Epes v.
Green Tree Fin. Servicing Corp., No. 3:04-cv-00455-REP (E.D. Va.
Dec. 14, 2004; May 12, 2006; Aug. 24, 2006). 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 of 3 --