Dane Desouza v. First Mount Vernon ILA , 473 F. App'x 261 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2296
DANE DESOUZA; VELESKA DESOUZA,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
FIRST MOUNT VERNON ILA; FSB; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JANE
DOE 1; JANE DOE 2,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-1248
DANE DESOUZA; VELESKA DESOUZA,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
FIRST MOUNT VERNON ILA; FSB; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JANE
DOE 1; JANE DOE 2,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:11-cv-00845-AJT-TRJ)
Submitted: April 30, 2012 Decided: May 25, 2012
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dane Desouza, Veleska Desouza, Appellants Pro Se. James Michael
Towarnicky, JAMES M. TOWARNICKY, PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for
Appellee First Mount Vernon ILA.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Dane and Veleska
Desouza appeal the district court’s order dismissing their civil
action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (No. 11-2296), and
the order granting the motion for reconsideration filed by First
Mount Vernon ILA (“FMV”) and revoking leave to appeal the Rule
12(b)(6) dismissal in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (No. 12-1248). The
Desouzas provide no argument in their informal briefs addressing
the district court’s dispositive holding that their complaint
failed to state a claim. Because we confine our review to the
issues raised in the informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), the
Desouzas have forfeited appellate review of the district court’s
dismissal order.
Turning to the appeal of the court’s order granting
reconsideration and revoking IFP status, we have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. The district court’s
certification that the appeal of the dismissal order is taken in
bad faith controls in the absence of a showing that the district
court itself made the determination in bad faith. See Maloney
v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 396 F.2d 939, 940 (D.C. Cir.
1967). Because the Desouzas have failed to demonstrate on
appeal that the certification itself was taken in bad faith, we
conclude the certification is controlling.
3
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed IFP and dismiss
the appeals for the reasons stated by the district court.
Desouza v. First Mount Vernon ILA, No. 1:11-cv-00845-AJT-TRJ
(E.D. Va. Oct. 21, 2011; filed Feb. 1, 2012, and entered Feb. 2,
2012). We deny as moot FMV’s motion to dismiss and 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.
DISMISSED
4