FULLER v. HOLT III (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Napier Sandford FULLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Rebecca W. HOLT, in her official capacity as employee of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts; Richard A. Baddour, in his official capacity as employee of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts; James C. Stanford, in his official capacity as employee of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts; James T. Bryan III, in his official capacity as employee of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts; Samantha Hyatt Cabe, in her official capacity as employee of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts; Catherine C. Stevens, in her official capacity as employee of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, Defendants – Appellees.
Napier Sandford Fuller, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Rebecca W. Holt, in her official capacity as employee of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts; Richard A. Baddour, in his official capacity as employee of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts; James C. Stanford, in his official capacity as employee of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts; James T. Bryan, III, in his official capacity as employee of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts; Samantha Hyatt Cabe, in her official capacity as employee of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts; Catherine C. Stevens, in her official capacity as employee of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 19-1110, No. 19-1306

Decided: June 24, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Napier Sandford Fuller, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Woodruff Sawchak, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Napier Sandford Fuller appeals the district court's order denying relief on his complaint that alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101 to 12213 (West 2013 & Supp. 2018), and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 701-796l (West 2018), and its subsequent orders denying his motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and motion for a temporary restraining order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Fuller v. Holt, No. 7:18-cv-00059-FL (E.D.N.C. Nov. 21, 2018, Jan. 2, 2019, Feb. 25, 2019). We grant Fuller's motion to withdraw and replace his informal brief and deny his motion for summary disposition and request for injunctive relief. 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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law