Joanne Boyd v. WACHOVIA BANK NA AS TRUSTEE FOR PA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY On Appeal from the United…

1
BLD-78
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-2949
___________
JOANNE BOYD,
Appellant
v.
WACHOVIA BANK NA AS TRUSTEE FOR
PA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-02032)
District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
December 6, 2007
Before: SCIRICA, MCKEE, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 21, 2008)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM

-- 1 of 3 --

Boyd has another appeal pending before this Court, C.A. No. 07-3525, arising1
from the District Court’s order denying relief on another action filed at docket number
E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 07-cv-02033. The matters were consolidated for disposition by
Clerk’s Order entered September 26, 2007, but we will address the other appeal
separately.
Boyd’s “motion for affirmative relief” contains her objection to the September2
26, 2007 Clerk’s Order consolidating her two appeals for disposition. As noted above,
we shall address the matters separately. We note that Boyd filed a “Motion For Leave
For Stay And Injunction” in this appeal, which this Court denied on December 5, 2007.
2
Joanne Boyd appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania denying relief on the action she filed in that court. We
will affirm the District Court’s order.
Boyd initiated her action in District Court by filing a “petition for notice of
appeal,” which named Wachovia Bank, N.A. (“Wachovia”) as the respondent and sought
review of a March 19, 2007 action by the United States Supreme Court. The District
Court sua sponte denied the petition for failure to comply with Rule 3 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires the filing of a complaint to commence a civil
action, and noted that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to review a decision of
the United States Supreme Court. Boyd appeals. Wachovia has filed a motion for1
summary affirmance of the District Court’s order and a motion for leave to file a
memorandum brief on appeal, to which Boyd has filed a response. Boyd has also filed a
“motion for affirmative relief” as an additional response to Wachovia’s motion.2
We will summarily affirm the order of the District Court pursuant to Third Circuit
LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6, because it appears that no substantial question is presented by

-- 2 of 3 --

this appeal. We are free to affirm the District Court’s judgment on any basis supported by
the record. Fairview Township v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 773 F.2d 517, 525
n.15 (3d Cir. 1985). Boyd asserts that the District Court’s dismissal of her action was
erroneous and was contrary to several procedural rules, including Rules 9(e), 52, and 58
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, we agree with the District Court that it
does not sit as an appellate court to review an action by the United States Supreme Court.
The federal procedural rules upon which Boyd relies do not support her position.
For the foregoing reasons, we grant Wachovia’s motion for summary action and
will summarily affirm the order of the District Court. Wachovia’s motion for leave to file
a memorandum brief is denied as moot.
3

-- 3 of 3 --