Filed: May 10, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2246 CARLOS A. ALFORD, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CELECIA PEERS; BRIAN MANSFIELD; GOOD SHEPARD MINISTRIES, Defendants – Appellees, and KATRINA KNIGHT; VERNA MANSFIELD, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:09-cv-00170-BO) Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 10, 2011 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2246 CARLOS A. ALFORD, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CELECIA PEERS; BRIAN MANSFIELD; GOOD SHEPARD MINISTRIES, Defendants – Appellees, and KATRINA KNIGHT; VERNA MANSFIELD, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:09-cv-00170-BO) Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 10, 2011 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circui..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2246 CARLOS A. ALFORD, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CELECIA PEERS; BRIAN MANSFIELD; GOOD SHEPARD MINISTRIES, Defendants – Appellees, and KATRINA KNIGHT; VERNA MANSFIELD, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:09-cv-00170-BO) Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 10, 2011 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carlos A. Alford, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Lee Davis, Jr., Ann Cox Rowe, DAVIS & HAMRICK, LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carlos A. Alford appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Alford v. Peers, No. 7:09-cv-00170-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov. 1, 2010). 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