Jorgensen v. Rhoads , 283 F. App'x 165 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-2181
JOANN K. JORGENSEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RODNEY RHOADS; PAMELA RHOADS, a/k/a Pam Rhoads; ANVIL MORTGAGE
CORPORATION; ACCREDITED HOME LENDERS, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cv-01409-CMH-TCB)
Submitted: June 13, 2008 Decided: June 30, 2008
Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joann K. Jorgensen, Appellant Pro Se. George Rubert Albert Doumar,
Kellie Maxine Budd, Elaine M. Darroch, DOUMAR LAW GROUP, Arlington,
Virginia; Henry S. Fitzgerald, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joann Jorgensen appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to the Appellees on her claims of fraud
and constructive fraud.* We review an order granting summary
judgment de novo, drawing reasonable inferences in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Henson v. Liggett Group, Inc.,
61 F.3d 270, 274 (4th Cir. 1995). Summary judgment may be granted
only when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). However, “[c]onclusory or speculative
allegations do not suffice, nor does a ‘mere scintilla of evidence’
in support of his case.” Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312
F.3d 645, 649 (4th Cir. 2002) (quoting Phillips v. CSX Transp.,
Inc., 190 F.3d 285, 287 (4th Cir. 1999)). Summary judgment will
be granted unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party on the evidence presented. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).
In light of these principles, we have reviewed the
parties’ pleadings and the transcript of the summary judgment
hearing, and we find no reversible error in the reasoning of the
district court as stated in its bench ruling. Accordingly, we
*
The district court also entered judgment against Rodney
Rhoads, from which Rhoads does not appeal, on Jorgensen’s third
count and dismissed her fourth and fifth counts without prejudice.
These counts were unrelated to the subject of this appeal.
- 2 -
affirm the district court’s order. See Jorgensen v. Rhoads, No.
1:06-cv-01409-CMH-TCB (E.D. Va. Oct. 15, 2007). We grant
Jorgensen’s motion to supplement her informal brief. 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 -