Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Goyens v. NC Dept Health, 00-1210 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1210 Visitors: 8
Filed: Nov. 22, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1210 CHALEDEEANNKA DOCUMENT PREPARER GOYENS; O’LEVIA GOYENS; MALCOLM GOYENS; FREDDIE GOYENS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-99-196-4-H) Submitted: November 14, 2000 Decided: November 22, 2000 Before WILLI
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1210 CHALEDEEANNKA DOCUMENT PREPARER GOYENS; O’LEVIA GOYENS; MALCOLM GOYENS; FREDDIE GOYENS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-99-196-4-H) Submitted: November 14, 2000 Decided: November 22, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chaledeeannka Document Preparer Goyens, Appellant Pro Se. Claud Robert Whitener, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Chaledeeannka Goyens appeals the district court’s order dis- missing her civil action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Goyens v. North Carolina Dep’t of Health & Human Res., No. CA-99-196-4-H (E.D.N.C. Jan. 28, 2000). We deny the parties’ motions to expedite the appeal, and we deny Goyens’ “motion for release pending of rec- ords.” We deny Goyens’ motion for 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
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