Adams v. Horton, 110419 FED2, 18-2464
|Party Name:||Bahji Adams, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Keith Horton, individually and officially as Commissioner for the DFCC State of Georgia, Defendant-Appellee, Vermont Office of Child Support, Georgia Division of Child Support Services, Commissioner for State of Vermont for the Office of Child Support, Jane Doe, John Doe, Defendants.|
|Attorney:||FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Bahji Adams, pro se, Burlington, VT. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Brian E. Goldberg, Assistant Attorney General, for Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General of Georgia, Georgia Department of Law, Atlanta, GA.|
|Judge Panel:||PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, DENNY CHIN, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||November 04, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ''SUMMARY ORDER''). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4th day of November, two thousand nineteen.
Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (Sessions, J.).
FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Bahji Adams, pro se, Burlington, VT.
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Brian E. Goldberg, Assistant Attorney General, for Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General of Georgia, Georgia Department of Law, Atlanta, GA.
PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, DENNY CHIN, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Appellant Bahji Adams, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's order denying her Fed.R.Civ.P. 62.1 motion seeking an indicative ruling on a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. Adams sought reconsideration of a judgment dismissing her claims that the defendants had violated her constitutional rights and failed to accommodate her disabilities in state child support proceedings and enforcement. We previously affirmed the dismissal of her claims...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP