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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?