Gates Hudson & Assoc v. Banks ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
GATES, HUDSON & ASSOCIATES,
INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 98-2172
v.
SIMON BANKS; CAMILLE T. TAYLOR,
Defendants-Appellants.
GATES, HUDSON & ASSOCIATES,
INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 98-2210
v.
SIMON BANKS; CAMILLE T. TAYLOR,
Defendants-Appellants.
SIMON BANKS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
CAMILLE T. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
No. 98-2485
v.
KEVIN M. FITZPATRICK; FITZPATRICK
& RAFTERY, P.C.; GATES, HUDSON &
ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED; E.
ROBERT GIAMMITTORIO, Chief Judge,
Alexandria General District Court;
BECKY MOORE; JAMES S. GILMORE,
III, Governor of Virginia; JAMES H.
DUNNING, Sheriff for Alexandria,
Virginia,
Defendants-Appellees.
GATES, HUDSON & ASSOCIATES,
INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 98-2488
v.
SIMON BANKS; CAMILLE T. TAYLOR,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge;
Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge.
(CA-98-514-A, CA-98-1150-A, CA-98-1116-A)
Submitted: April 13, 1999
Decided: April 30, 1999
Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Nos. 98-2172 and 98-2485 affirmed; Nos. 98-2210 and 98-2488
affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
2
COUNSEL
Simon Banks, Camille T. Taylor, Appellants Pro Se. Alan Russell
Siciliano, DECARO, DORAN, SICILIANO, GALLAGHER &
DEBLASIS, L.L.P., Alexandria, Virginia; John Benjamin Raftery,
FITZPATRICK & RAFTERY, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Simon Banks and Camille Taylor ("Appellants") have filed four
consolidated appeals stemming from three closely related district
court cases.
In appeal number 98-2172, Appellants appeal the district court's
order remanding to state court the unlawful detainer action in which
they are Defendants. In light of the procedural posture of this matter,
we need not review the propriety of the remand order. The unlawful
detainer action proceeded to completion in state court during the pen-
dency of these appeals. Therefore, even if we were to review the order
and conclude that the remand was in error, relitigation of the unlawful
detainer claim would be barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See
generally Sykes v. Texas Air Corp., 834 F.2d 488, 490-91 (5th Cir.
1987) (discussing "peculiar" quality of appellate review of remand
orders). Accordingly, we affirm.
In appeal number 98-2210, Appellants appeal the district court's
orders denying their emergency motion and deeming their second
removed case closed. We have reviewed the record and the district
court opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on
3
the reasoning of the district court. See Gates, Hudson & Assocs., Inc.
v. Banks, No. CA-98-1150-A (E.D. Va. Aug. 17, 1998).*
In appeal number 98-2488, Appellants appeal the district court's
order granting Appellee's second motion to remand, entered after
Appellants had noted appeal number 98-2210. Because Appellants
had already noted an appeal of the district court's order closing the
case, the district court was without jurisdiction to grant the motion to
remand. See Fobian v. Storage Technology Corp. , 164 F.3d 887, 890
(4th Cir. 1999). We therefore vacate that portion of the district court's
order remanding the action, and remand for such further proceedings,
if any, as the district court deems appropriate. With regard to the
imposition of sanctions, we have reviewed the record and the district
court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
the portion of the district court's order that imposes sanctions on the
reasoning of the district court. See Gates, Hudson & Assocs., Inc. v.
Banks, No. CA-98-1150-A (E.D. Va., filed Aug. 21, 1998; entered
Aug. 24, 1998; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, 79(a)); see also Langham-Hill
Petroleum Inc. v. Southern Fuels Co., 813 F.2d 1327, 1330-31 (4th
Cir. 1987). We deny Appellants' motion for summary reversal of the
district court's August 24, 1998, order.
In appeal number 98-2485, Appellants appeal the district court's
order dismissing their action seeking injunctive and mandamus relief
as well as monetary damages. We have reviewed the record and the
district court opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Banks v. Fitzpatrick,
No. CA-98-1116-A (E.D. Va., filed Aug. 27, 1998; entered Aug. 31,
1998; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, 79(a)).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
_________________________________________________________________
*Although the district court's orders are marked as"filed" on August
10 and 11, 1998, the district court's records show that the orders were
entered on the docket sheet on August 17, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58
and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the
orders were entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date
of the district court's decisions. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232,
1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
4
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
Nos. 98-2172/2485 - AFFIRMED
Nos. 98-2210/2488 - AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART
5