Paul Mitchell v. Philip Baddour, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for restraining order and expedited hearing [999895793-3]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999855075-2] Originating case number: 5:15-cv-00083-H Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999939832]. Mailed to: P Mitchell. [16-1466]

Appeal: 16-1466

Doc: 21

Filed: 10/03/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1466

PAUL A. MITCHELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PHILIP A. BADDOUR, JR., In individual and official capacity
as Board of Trustees Attorney, Wayne Community College; KAY
ALBERTSON, In individual and official capacity as President
and Secretary to the Board of Trustees, Wayne Community
College,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:15-cv-00083-H)

Submitted:

September 29, 2016

Decided:

October 3, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul A. Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Margaret Dillon, ELLIS
& WINTERS, LLP, Cary, North Carolina; Nora Foster Sullivan,
ELLIS & WINTERS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Jason Vincent
Federmack, Patricia Lee Holland, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1466

Doc: 21

Filed: 10/03/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Paul

A.

Mitchell

appeals

dismissing his civil complaint.
find

no

reversible

error.

the

district

court’s

order

We have reviewed the record and
Accordingly,

we

grant

leave

to

proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court.
(E.D.N.C.

Mar.

24,

Mitchell v. Baddour, No. 5:15-cv-00083-H
2016).

We

deny

Mitchell’s

restraining order and expedited hearing.

motion

for

a

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.

AFFIRMED

2