Filed: Feb. 13, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1710 LYNN ELLEN MENDES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHARLES BROWN; CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG PUBLIC LIBRARY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (3:10-cv-00397-RLV-DCK) Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1710 LYNN ELLEN MENDES, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHARLES BROWN; CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG PUBLIC LIBRARY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (3:10-cv-00397-RLV-DCK) Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cur..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1710
LYNN ELLEN MENDES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES BROWN; CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG PUBLIC LIBRARY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (3:10-cv-00397-RLV-DCK)
Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lynn Ellen Mendes, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lynn Ellen Mendes appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint as frivolous
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006), and denying
reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Mendes v. Brown, No. 3:10-cv-00397-RLV-
DCK (W.D.N.C. Nov. 19, 2010; Aug. 29, 2011). 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