Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-21-2008
Boyd v. Wachovia Bank NA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-3525
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Boyd v. Wachovia Bank NA" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1548.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1548
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
BLD-79
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-3525
___________
JOANNE BOYD,
Appellant
v.
WACHOVIA BANK, N.A.
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-02033)
District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
December 6, 2007
Before: SCIRICA, MCKEE and RENDELL, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 21, 2008)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
1
Joanne Boyd appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing her case for failure to state a claim. We will
affirm the District Court’s order.
Boyd filed in District Court a “petition for notice of appeal,” which named
Wachovia Bank, N.A. (“Wachovia”) as the sole respondent and sought review of a March
19, 2007 action by the United States Supreme Court. Boyd invoked the First and
Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, alleging that employees of the Office of the
Clerk of the United States Supreme Court violated her rights in processing a petition she
filed in that court. Boyd asserted that the Supreme Court Office of the Clerk engaged in
discrimination against her, and the denial of her Supreme Court petition was an attempt to
conceal criminal actions. Other materials attached to her document filed in District Court
contained Boyd’s allegations that employees of the United States Postal Service engaged
in criminal and reckless behavior, including mail tampering, causing delay in mail
delivery in relation to her Supreme Court petition. Boyd asserted that these employees’
actions were aimed at thwarting her efforts to stop a sheriff’s sale on her residence.
Wachovia filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Wachovia argued, among other things, that Boyd’s document contained
no allegations that Wachovia engaged in any conduct that affected Boyd’s legal rights and
contained no averments to explain Wachovia’s presence in the lawsuit. Boyd did not
respond to the motion to dismiss. The District Court granted Wachovia’s motion to
2
dismiss, noting that the motion appeared to be uncontested, that Boyd’s initial pleading
failed to comply with Rule 3 and 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that
Boyd failed to state a viable cause of action against Wachovia. Boyd appeals.1 This
Court advised the parties that the appeal would be submitted for possible dismissal under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) or for possible summary action. Boyd has filed a “motion for leave
to correct affirmative relief” in opposition to summary action.
Upon review of the record and consideration of the arguments Boyd presents to
this Court, we agree with the District Court’s dismissal of the case for failure to state a
viable claim. The record is devoid of any suggestion that Wachovia was involved in any
wrongdoing. Aside from being named in the caption, Wachovia is not mentioned at all in
Boyd’s pleading.
Because no substantial question is presented by this appeal, we will summarily
affirm the order of the District Court pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.
1
Boyd also initiated another action in District Court, E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 07-cv-
02032, which has resulted in another appeal before this Court, C.A. No. 07-2949. The
matter was consolidated for disposition by Clerk’s Order entered September 26, 2007,
but we will address the matter separately. 3