Weir v. Curtis , 96 F. App'x 151 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2238
SHEILA WEIR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
TYRONE P. CURTIS, Executive Director; RICHMOND
REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-03-4)
Submitted: February 27, 2004 Decided: May 4, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sheila Weir, Appellant Pro Se. William Harrison Baxter, II,
MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Sheila Weir appeals the magistrate judge’s order
imposing $500 sanctions, enjoining her from filing any future
lawsuits until the sanction is paid in full, and dismissing her
civil action with prejudice for failure to prosecute. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
To the extent that Weir appeals the district court’s
denial of her motion to withdraw her consent to have a magistrate
judge preside over her case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1)
(2000), we find no error in the district court’s finding that Weir
failed to establish “extraordinary circumstances” sufficient to
withdraw the reference to the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c)(4) (2000); Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir.
1993); Fellman v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 735 F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir.
1984). We further find no merit to Weir’s claim that the
magistrate judge did not have authority to impose sanctions against
her. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(4) (2000).
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
magistrate judge. See Weir v. Curtis, No. CA-03-4 (E.D. Va. Oct.
2, 2003). We grant Weir’s motion to amend 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
- 2 -