Parham v. Coca-Cola Company ( 1998 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 98-1095
    KARON ANN PARHAM,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    THE COCA-COLA COMPANY,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    No. 98-1419
    KARON ANN PARHAM, daughter of Iris Candler of
    the Candlers of Atlanta, Georgia originators
    of the Coca-Cola Company,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    THE COCA-COLA COMPANY,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-97-136-3, CA-96-551)
    Submitted:   May 28, 1998                 Decided:   June 10, 1998
    Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, * Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Karon Ann Parham, Appellant Pro Se. Rosewell Page, III, Darryl
    Scott Lew, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P., Richmond,
    Virginia; L. Norwood Jameson, KING & SPALDING, Atlanta, Georgia,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    *
    Judge Motz did not participate in consideration of this
    case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 
    42 U.S.C. § 46
    (d).
    2
    PER CURIAM:
    Karon Ann Parham appeals the district court's orders dismiss-
    ing her motions to accept newly discovered evidence, for entry of
    default, and for default judgment. We have reviewed the records and
    the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accord-
    ingly, we dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. Parham v.
    Coca-Cola Co., No. CA-97-136-3 (E.D. Va., Jan. 5, 1998); Parham v.
    Coca-Cola Co., No. CA-96-551 (E.D. Va., Mar. 6, 1998). Because
    these appeals are frivolous, we deny Parham's motion to proceed in
    forma pauperis in No. 98-1419 and to remand the case in No. 98-
    1095. 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.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 98-1095

Filed Date: 6/10/1998

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021