In Re: Katherine Robinson v. , 694 F. App'x 132 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1163
In re: KATHERINE B. ROBINSON,
Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (8:16-mc-00965)
Submitted: July 27, 2017 Decided: July 31, 2017
Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Katherine B. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Katherine B. Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing on res
judicata grounds her civil complaint against the Department of Justice Drug Enforcement
Administration and the Virginia Employment Commission, and the district court’s order
issuing a prefiling injunction against Robinson for her repeated filing of similar
complaints against these Defendants. This court affirmed the challenged orders by
unpublished per curiam opinion filed on April 25, 2017, and the mandate in that appeal
issued on June 19, 2017. See Robinson v. Dep’t of Justice Drug Enf’t Admin., No. 17-
1036, 2017 WL 1476151 (4th Cir. Apr. 25, 2017) (unpublished). Because we have
previously affirmed the district court’s orders, this appeal is duplicative.
To the extent that Robinson’s appellate filings could be construed as a challenge to
this court’s previous opinion affirming the district court’s orders, the time for filing a
rehearing petition expired long ago. See Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1) (“Unless the time is
shortened or extended by order or local rule, a petition for panel rehearing may be filed
within 14 days after entry of judgment.”). Moreover, this court may recall its mandate to
avoid injustice only in exceptional cases. See Alphin v. Henson, 552 F.2d 1033, 1035
(4th Cir. 1977). “The sparing use of the power demonstrates it is one of last resort, to be
held in reserve against grave, unforeseen contingencies.” Calderon v. Thompson, 523
U.S. 538, 550 (1998). Robinson’s is not an exceptional case and, thus, the district court’s
orders are not subject to relitigation before this court.
Accordingly, we deny Robinson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3