O'Marr Reid v. State of North Carolina

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to strike [998777345-2]; granting Motion to extend reply brief page limit [998777356-2] Originating case number: 3:11-cv-00422-MOC-DSC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998838547].. [11-2385]

Appeal: 11-2385

Document: 13

Date Filed: 04/24/2012

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-2385
O’MARR S. REID,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:11-cv-00422-MOC-DSC)
Submitted:

April 19, 2012

Decided:

April 24, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
O’marr S. Reid, Appellant Pro Se.
David John Adinolfi, II,
Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-2385

Document: 13

Date Filed: 04/24/2012

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
O’marr
accepting

the

S.

Reid

appeals

recommendation

of

the

district

the

court’s

magistrate

judge

order
and

granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss Reid’s civil complaint,
and a subsequent order denying Reid’s motion for new trial and
relief from judgment.
reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.
00422-MOC-DSC

We have reviewed the record and find no

(W.D.N.C.

Reid v. North Carolina, No. 3:11-cvNov.

28,

2011;

Dec.

9,

2011).

We

further deny Reid’s motion to strike Appellee’s response brief,
but grant Reid’s motion to extend the reply brief page limit.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2