Linda Evans v. Pitt County Dept Soc Svc

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999584455-2]. Originating case number: 4:12-cv-00226-FL. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999671079]. Mailed to: Linda Evans. [15-1528]

Appeal: 15-1528

Doc: 14

Filed: 10/02/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1528

LINDA A. EVANS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
PITT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; GEORGE L. PERRY,
Director of Pitt County Social Services in his official
capacity; APRIL HANNING, in her individual capacity;
CYNTHIA M. ROSS, in her individual capacity; LINDA MARTIN
CURTIS, in her individual capacity; LINDA MILLION, in her
individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (4:12-cv-00226-FL)

Submitted:

September 29, 2015

Before WILKINSON and
Senior Circuit Judge.

DUNCAN,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

October 2, 2015

and

HAMILTON,

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Linda A. Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Christopher Hart,
SUMRELL, SUGG, CARMICHAEL, HICKS & HART, PA, New Bern, North
Carolina, for Appellees. Linda Martin Curtis, Appellee Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1528

Doc: 14

Filed: 10/02/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Linda A. Evans filed a complaint against the Pitt County
Department

of

Social

Services

(“DSS”),

George

Perry,

April

Hanning, Cynthia Ross, Linda Million, and Linda Curtis alleging
claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and under state law.
The district court accepted the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissed all of Evans’ claims against DSS, Perry,
Ross, and Million except her claims of procedural due process
violations. *

The court later granted summary judgment in favor

of Curtis on Evans’ remaining claims.
record and find no reversible error.

We have reviewed the
Accordingly, although we

grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district
court’s
facts

orders.

and

materials

legal
before

We

dispense

with

oral

argument

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

because

presented

would

not

the

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

*

On Perry, Ross, and Million’s previous appeal of the
district court’s interlocutory order denying them absolute
immunity
from
Evans’
claims
of
procedural
due
process
violations, we vacated the portion of the district court’s order
allowing
those
claims
to
go
forward
and
remanded
with
instructions to dismiss those claims.
Those issues are
therefore not before this court in the current appeal.

2