VAUGHAN v. 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. (2020)

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

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, 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.

No. 19-1409

Decided: October 09, 2020

Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

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.

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, 2017 WL 4872484 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 27, 2017). 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

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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