Davada Loughlin v. Vance County

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999570881-2] Originating case number: 5:14-cv-00219-FL. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999658123]. Mailed to: Davada Loughlin, Britt S. Moore and D.C.L.. [15-1435]

Appeal: 15-1435

Doc: 25

Filed: 09/11/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1435

DAVADA C. LOUGHLIN; D.C.L., Davada C. Loughlin for D.C.L.,
a minor; BRITT S. MOORE,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
VANCE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; LINDA FRY,
Director at Vance County Department of Social Services; RENE
BETANCOURT,
Social
Work
Supervisor
at
Vance
County
Department of Social Services; LATOYA M. HARRIS, Case
Worker, Child Services at Vance County Department of Social
Services; VANCE COUNTY,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:14-cv-00219-FL)

Submitted:

September 9, 2015

Decided: September 11, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 15-1435

Doc: 25

Filed: 09/11/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

Davada C. Loughlin, D.C.L., Britt S. Moore, Appellants Pro Se.
Sonny Sade Haynes, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-1435

Doc: 25

Filed: 09/11/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Appellants

seek

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order

accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.
have

reviewed

Accordingly,

we

the

record

deny

leave

and

no

proceed

to

find

in

reversible
forma

We

error.

pauperis

and

dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court.
Loughlin v. Vance Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., No. 5:14-cv-00219FL (E.D.N.C. April 1, 2015).

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.

DISMISSED

3