Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

John McLean v. Marvin Casino, 14-7469 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-7469 Visitors: 20
Filed: Jan. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7469 JOHN MCLEAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARVIN D. CASINO; ROBERT OWENS; PAULA SMITH; TERRI CATLETT; DR. J. NATHANIEL HAMILTON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:13-ct-03065-FL) Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Seni
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7469 JOHN MCLEAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MARVIN D. CASINO; ROBERT OWENS; PAULA SMITH; TERRI CATLETT; DR. J. NATHANIEL HAMILTON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:13-ct-03065-FL) Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John McLean, Appellant Pro Se. Judith Maria Estevez, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Ginger Bagley Hunsucker, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Kelly Street Brown, Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John McLean appeals the district court’s order granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims, and dismissing his complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. McLean v. Casino, No. 5:13-ct-03065-FL (E.D.N.C. Sept. 3, 2014). 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
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