Filed: Mar. 18, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2664 SARAH R. MILLARES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HAYWOOD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-96-194) Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 18, 1997 Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sarah R. M
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2664 SARAH R. MILLARES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HAYWOOD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-96-194) Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 18, 1997 Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sarah R. Mi..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2664 SARAH R. MILLARES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HAYWOOD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-96-194) Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 18, 1997 Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sarah R. Millares, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing with- out prejudice her civil action involving Appellee's removal of her children. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Millares v. Haywood County Dep't of Social Servs., No. CA-96-194 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 28, 1996). We dis- pense 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
