Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Sanders v. North Carolina State, 08-1499 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-1499 Visitors: 19
Filed: Nov. 25, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1499 LAUNEIL SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE, authorized agent NC Attorney General Roy Cooper; GASTON COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (7:07-cv-03174-GRA) Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: November 25, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Jud
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1499 LAUNEIL SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE, authorized agent NC Attorney General Roy Cooper; GASTON COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (7:07-cv-03174-GRA) Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: November 25, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Launeil Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Gerald Kevin Robbins, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Frank Langston Eppes, EPPES & PLUMBLEE, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, Thomas B. Kakassy, THOMAS B. KAKASSY, PA, Gastonia, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Launeil Sanders appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sanders v. North Carolina, No. 7:07-cv-03174-GRA (D.S.C. Apr. 24, 2008). Further, we deny the pending motion to dismiss this appeal for failure to prosecute. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer