Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 113 views

    Marlene Ryder v. Terrence McCabe, 3rd Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit summarily affirmed the District Court's order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss Marlene Ryder's complaint. The Court found that Ryder's seven-page complaint was incomprehensible and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. As the complaint did not explain how the False Claims Act was violated or what claims Ryder intended to raise, and the syntax and grammar made it difficult to understand any factual allegations, the District Court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals concluded that no substantial question was presented by the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Marlene Ryder v. Terrence McCabe, 3rd Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    113 views4 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit summarily affirmed the District Court's order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss Marlene Ryder's complaint. The Court found that Ryder's seven-page complaint was incomprehensible and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. As the complaint did not explain how the False Claims Act was violated or what claims Ryder intended to raise, and the syntax and grammar made it difficult to understand any factual allegations, the District Court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals concluded that no substantial question was presented by the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-08-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-1983

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit summarily affirmed the District Court's order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss Marlene Ryder's complaint. The Court found that Ryder's seven-page complaint was incomprehensible and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. As the complaint did not explain how the False Claims Act was violated or what claims Ryder intended to raise, and the syntax and grammar made it difficult to understand any factual allegations, the District Court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals concluded that no substantial question was presented by the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    113 views4 pages

    Marlene Ryder v. Terrence McCabe, 3rd Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit summarily affirmed the District Court's order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss Marlene Ryder's complaint. The Court found that Ryder's seven-page complaint was incomprehensible and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. As the complaint did not explain how the False Claims Act was violated or what claims Ryder intended to raise, and the syntax and grammar made it difficult to understand any factual allegations, the District Court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals concluded that no substantial question was presented by the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    BLD-246

    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 12-1983
    ___________
    MARLENE RYDER,
    Ethel-Mae Williams for the Witnessing of the Parse-Syntax-Grammer
    of the Vasalees Fraud-Documents
    v.
    *TERRENCE J. MCCABE, ESQ.;
    MCCABE, WEISBERG AND CONWAY, P.C.;
    MARC S. WEISBERG, ESQ.;
    *EDWARD D. CONWAY, ESQ.;
    MARGARET GAIRO, ESQ.;
    EVERHOME MORTGAGE COMPANY
    MARLENE RYDER,
    Appellant
    *(Amended pursuant to Clerk's Order dated 5/1/12)
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civil No. 12-cv-00179)
    District Judge: Honorable Ronald L. Buckwalter
    ____________________________________

    Submitted on Appellees Motion to Dismiss the Appeal or for Summary Affirmance


    August 2, 2012
    Before: SCIRICA, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: August 20, 2012)
    _________
    OPINION
    _________

    PER CURIAM
    Marlene Ryder appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the
    Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which granted the Defendants motion to dismiss her
    complaint. Before us primarily is Appellees (Defendants below) motion to dismiss the
    appeal, also construed as a motion for summary affirmance. 1 Because the appeal is
    properly before us, we decline to dismiss the appeal. However, for the reasons given in
    the Appellees motion, we find that the appeal presents no substantial question. We will
    therefore summarily affirm the District Courts order, pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4
    and I.O.P. 10.6. 2
    Marlene Ryder filed an incomprehensible, seven-page complaint in the District
    Court. It appears that the subject matter of the complaint may be related to a mortgage
    foreclosure action that was filed in the state court. The Defendants filed motions to
    dismiss on three grounds: (1) the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may
    be granted; (2) the complaint was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; and (3) the
    District Court lacked jurisdiction at the time the complaint was filed because the Federal
    Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania had exclusive jurisdiction over

    We address the remaining pending motions in footnote 4, infra.

    We may summarily affirm an order appealed from where it appears that no substantial
    question is presented. I.O.P. 10.6. Before taking summary action, the court will afford
    the parties an opportunity to submit argument in support of or in opposition to such
    disposition if briefs on the merits have not already been filed. Id. (emphasis added).
    Ryder has already filed her informal brief, and it does not address the District Courts
    2

    Ryders property. Ryder did not file an answer to the Motions to Dismiss. The District
    Court granted the Defendants motions, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
    Ryder filed a timely notice of appeal. 3
    We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Our review of a District
    Courts order granting a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is plenary. Dique v.
    N.J. State Police, 603 F.3d 181, 188 (3d Cir. 2010). To survive a motion to dismiss, a
    plaintiff must state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v.
    Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The complaint must contain factual content that
    allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant[s are] liable for the
    misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550
    U.S. at 556 (2007)).
    The District Court properly dismissed the complaint. Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v.
    Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247, 252-53 (3d Cir. 2007) (district court may
    enter final order dismissing complaint that fails to state a claim for relief where plaintiff
    has not requested leave to amend). As noted previously, the complaint is
    incomprehensible. The first page of the complaint contains the heading, For the Claim

    reasons for dismissing her complaint. Furthermore, Appellees motion put her on notice
    of the reasons that her appeal was without merit, and Ryder has responded to that motion.
    3

    Ryder has attached to her notice of appeal over 180 pages of documents. As these
    documents are not part of the District Court record, we do not consider them. In re
    Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.s Application for Access to Sealed Transcripts, 913 F.2d 89, 96
    (3d Cir. 1990).
    3

    of the Violation of the False-Claims-Act of the evidence CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR


    FORECLOSURE-Void-Now-Time For the Plaintiff is with the Demanding of the trial by
    the Jury. Ryder does not explain how the False Claims Act applies or how it was
    violated. Indeed, it is difficult to understand what, if any, claims Ryder intends to raise.
    Similarly, the syntax and grammar of the complaint make it difficult to understand
    whether Ryder is asserting any factual matter. Because the District Court properly
    dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, we need not reach the other
    arguments set forth in Appellees motion to dismiss.
    For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that no substantial question is presented by
    this appeal. See I.O.P. 10.6. Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Courts
    judgment. 4

    Ryders Motion for Emergency Injunction is dismissed. [U]nless an appeal be taken


    from the refusal or neglect of a lower tribunal to grant an injunction, our authority to
    grant injunctive relief must proceed from the so-called All Writs Section of the Judicial
    Code, Section 262, 28 U.S.C.A. 377, and may be exercised by us only as auxiliary to
    and strictly in aid of our appellate jurisdiction. In re Philadelphia & Reading Coal &
    Iron Co., 103 F.2d 901, 903 (3d Cir. 1939); Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn, 319 U.S.
    21, 25 (1943) (authority of court of appeals to issue writs is restricted by statute to those
    cases in which writ is in aid of appellate jurisdiction). Because we are denying Ryders
    appeal, granting the motion for injunctive relief would not aid our jurisdiction. Ryders
    other outstanding motions are also denied. See Sewak v. I.N.S., 900 F.2d 667, 673 (3d
    Cir. 1990) (As an appellate court we do not take testimony, hear evidence or determine
    disputed facts in the first instance. Instead, we rely upon a record developed in those fora
    that do take evidence and find facts.).
    4

    You might also like