Cathy Brooks-McCollum v. State Farm Insurance Company

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2409

CATHY D. BROOKS-MCCOLLUM; SAMUEL J. MCCOLLUM,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

and

THE RESERVE @ ELK RIVER, with permission of the Court upon
indemnification ruling and within corporate document,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY; JEFF BEAM; ERIC HAVERSACK;
DARLENE RENDEK; STUART MOULTRIE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:13-cv-02025-JFM)

Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: April 11, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cathy D. Brooks-McCollum; Samuel J. McCollum, Appellants Pro Se.
Melissa Dyan McNair, BUDOW & NOBLE, PC, Bethesda, Maryland; Erin
Kathleen Voss, NAGLE & ZALLER PC, Columbia, Maryland, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2
PER CURIAM:

Cathy D. Brooks-McCollum and Samuel J. McCollum appeal

the district court’s order dismissing Appellants’ civil

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny all of Appellants’ motions that are not for an extension

of time, 1 deny Appellees’ motions to strike, grant all

outstanding motions for extension of time, 2 and affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. McCollum v. State Farm

Ins. Co., No. 1:13-cv-02025-JFM (D. Md. Nov. 18, 2013). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

1
To the extent that Appellants seek a writ of mandamus
asking us to overturn a decision of a Maryland state
administrative law judge, we do not have jurisdiction to grant
mandamus relief against state officials. Gurley v. Superior
Court of Mecklenburg Cnty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969).
2
The Appellants and Appellees have each filed motions to
permit late filing or to extend the time for filing informal
briefs. Although no orders acting on these motions have been
entered, it appears that the pertinent pleadings have, in fact,
been filed. So that the record is clear that we have considered
all submissions by all parties, all outstanding motions for
extension of time are granted nunc pro tunc.

3