925 F.2d 1463 (6th Cir. 1991), 90-5608, Hearne v. Hearne

Docket Nº:90-5608.
Citation:925 F.2d 1463
Party Name:Wanda Kay HEARNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, Michael Shawn Hearne, Plaintiff, v. Timmy Dean HEARNE, Velma Hearne, Wanda Duncan, Jeannie Lecomte, James N. Ramsey, Allen V. Kidwell, Harry L. Lillard, State of Tennessee, Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services, Defendants-Appellees, Jennings B. Meredity, Anderson County Tennessee, Defe
Case Date:February 12, 1991
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1463

925 F.2d 1463 (6th Cir. 1991)

Wanda Kay HEARNE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

Michael Shawn Hearne, Plaintiff,

v.

Timmy Dean HEARNE, Velma Hearne, Wanda Duncan, Jeannie Lecomte, James N. Ramsey, Allen V. Kidwell, Harry L. Lillard, State of Tennessee, Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services, Defendants-Appellees,

Jennings B. Meredity, Anderson County Tennessee, Defendants.

No. 90-5608.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

February 12, 1991

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

E.D.Tenn., No. 89-00029; Jordan, J.

E.D.Tenn.

AFFIRMED.

Before RYAN and SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judges, and SILER, Chief District Judge. [*]

ORDER

Wanda Kay Hearne, proceeding without benefit of counsel, appeals from the order of the district court dismissing her cause of action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state law claims. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the record and briefs, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

Wanda Kay Hearne sued numerous defendants she alleged deprived her of her constitutional and state law rights resulting from her divorce action from defendant Timmy Dean Hearne. The district court dismissed the case against all defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Upon review, we find no...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP