Filed: May 28, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1076 CHERRY REAVES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; CHARLOTTE HOUSING AUTHORITY; YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00632-MOC-DSC) Submitted: May 22, 2014 Decided: May 28, 2014 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior C
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1076 CHERRY REAVES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; CHARLOTTE HOUSING AUTHORITY; YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00632-MOC-DSC) Submitted: May 22, 2014 Decided: May 28, 2014 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Ci..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1076 CHERRY REAVES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; CHARLOTTE HOUSING AUTHORITY; YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00632-MOC-DSC) Submitted: May 22, 2014 Decided: May 28, 2014 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cherry Reaves, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Cherry Reaves appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Reaves v. USPS, No. 3:13-cv-00632-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Dec. 18, 2013). 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
