Thomas Everette, Jr. v. Regina Peele

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cv-00213-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999550116]. Mailed to: Everette. [14-7660]

Appeal: 14-7660

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/20/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7660

THOMAS EVERETTE, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
REGINA W. PEELE; CREDITED SOLUTIONS; KIM D. SAUNDER; HAROLD
G. SELLARS; MECHANICS AND FARMERS BANKS; THOMAS W. KING; THE
LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS W. KING; W. DUDLEY WHITLEY, III; SCOTT
A. MCKELLAR; DAVID W. GREEN; BATTLE, WINSLOW, SCOTT AND
WILEY P.A.; LAWYER MUTUAL; CRYSTAL BROWN; URSULA SHORT;
CAROL A. WHITE; EDGECOMBE COUNTY CLERK OF COURT; DENNIS A.
COLEY; BRIAN T. COREY; IVORY JOHNSON; JAMES I. KNIGHT;
EDGECOMBE COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE; EDGECOMBE COUNTY ANIMAL;
EDGECOMBE COUNTY; JANET WATSON; WATSON PROPERTY CORPORATION;
B. C. EASON, JR.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:14-cv-00213-BO)

Submitted:

March 17, 2015

Decided:

March 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Everette, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7660

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/20/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Thomas Everette, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his
civil

complaint

Limiting

our

after

review

a

28

to

U.S.C.

the

issues

§ 1915

(2012)

raised

in

review.

Everette’s

objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
and his informal brief, see Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841,
845–46

(4th

Cir.

1985);

district

court’s

00213-BO

(E.D.N.C.

4th

judgment.
Oct.

3,

Cir.

R.

34(b),

we

affirm

Everette

v.

Peele,

No.

2014).

We

dispense

the

5:14-cv-

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

2