Filed: Jun. 06, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1416 LORIA A. PATTERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DURHAM AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; GARLAND GARRETT; LARRY GOODE; CITY OF DURHAM, North Carolina; ORVILLE POWELL; JACKIE MCNEIL, City of Durham, North Carolina Police Department; JAMES B. HUNT, State of North Carolina; TRANSIT MANAGE- MENT OF DURHAM, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the East
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1416 LORIA A. PATTERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DURHAM AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; GARLAND GARRETT; LARRY GOODE; CITY OF DURHAM, North Carolina; ORVILLE POWELL; JACKIE MCNEIL, City of Durham, North Carolina Police Department; JAMES B. HUNT, State of North Carolina; TRANSIT MANAGE- MENT OF DURHAM, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Easte..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1416 LORIA A. PATTERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DURHAM AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; GARLAND GARRETT; LARRY GOODE; CITY OF DURHAM, North Carolina; ORVILLE POWELL; JACKIE MCNEIL, City of Durham, North Carolina Police Department; JAMES B. HUNT, State of North Carolina; TRANSIT MANAGE- MENT OF DURHAM, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-96-1060-5-BO-3) Submitted: May 29, 1997 Decided: June 6, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Loria A. Patterson, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. The district court’s order is modified to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (1994). Accordingly, although we grant leave to pro- ceed in forma pauperis, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court, as modified. Patterson v. Durham Area Transit Auth., No. CA- 96-1060-5-BO-3 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 25, 1997). 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 AS MODIFIED 2