Filed: Feb. 13, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1745 LORENZO DOMINIC RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CORINDA GREENE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:11-cv-00202-H) Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorenzo Dominic Ric
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1745 LORENZO DOMINIC RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CORINDA GREENE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:11-cv-00202-H) Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorenzo Dominic Rich..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1745
LORENZO DOMINIC RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CORINDA GREENE,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:11-cv-00202-H)
Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lorenzo Dominic Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lorenzo Dominic Richardson appeals the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction his complaint in
which he sought to appeal the state court’s denial of his
request to appeal his North Carolina child support order. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. See District of Columbia Court of
Appeals v. Feldman,
460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983). Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Richardson v. Greene, No. 5:11-cv-00202-H (E.D.N.C. July 6,
2011). We deny Richardson’s motions for relief and 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