Opinion
No. 19-1409
10-09-2020
SUSAN W. VAUGHAN, an individual, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SHANNON FOLTZ, an individual; SAMANTHA HURD, an individual; KRISTEN HARRIS, an individual; KATHLYN ROMM, an individual; RAY MATUSKO; STEPHANIE RYDER, an individual; CHUCK LYCETT, an individual; MELANIE CORPREW, an individual; JAY BURRUS, an individual; OFFICER DOE, an individual; DOES 3-10; MELISSA TURNAGE; KATHERINE MCCARRON; OFFICER MIKE SUDDUTH; OFFICER CARL WHITE; DOUG DOUGHTIE, an individual, Defendants - Appellees, and HON. ROBERT TRIVETTE, an individual; MEADER HARRISS, an individual; HON. AMBER DAVIS, an individual; COURTNEY HULL, an individual; ASST. DIST. ATTORNEY EULA REID, an individual; DARE COUNTY; CURRITUCK COUNTY; KILL DEVIL HILLS; SUSAN HARMON-SCOTT, an individual; MERLEE AUSTIN, an individual, Defendants.
Susan W. Vaughan, Appellant Pro Se. Kathryn Hicks Shields, Assistant Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Christopher J. Geis, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Dan M. Hartzog, Jr., HARTZOG LAW GROUP, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00061-FL) Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Susan W. Vaughan, Appellant Pro Se. Kathryn Hicks Shields, Assistant Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Christopher J. Geis, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Dan M. Hartzog, Jr., HARTZOG LAW GROUP, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Susan W. Vaughan appeals the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, dismissing a portion of Vaughan's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and denying relief on the remainder of Vaughan's complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Vaughan v. Foltz, No. 2:16-cv-00061-FL (E.D.N.C. Oct. 27, 2017 & Mar. 19, 2019). We deny as moot Vaughan's motion to file electronically, and 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