Filed: Feb. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2168 IRIS SAPP GANTT, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. COLVIN THOMAS MORGAN, a/k/a Tom Morgan, a/k/a C. T. Morgan, a/k/a Colvin T. Morgan; THURMO MEDICAL SLEEP PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:12-cv-01123-TDS-JLW) Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 25, 2014 Before DUNCAN,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2168 IRIS SAPP GANTT, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. COLVIN THOMAS MORGAN, a/k/a Tom Morgan, a/k/a C. T. Morgan, a/k/a Colvin T. Morgan; THURMO MEDICAL SLEEP PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:12-cv-01123-TDS-JLW) Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 25, 2014 Before DUNCAN, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2168
IRIS SAPP GANTT,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
COLVIN THOMAS MORGAN, a/k/a Tom Morgan, a/k/a C. T. Morgan,
a/k/a Colvin T. Morgan; THURMO MEDICAL SLEEP PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-01123-TDS-JLW)
Submitted: February 20, 2014 Decided: February 25, 2014
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Iris Sapp Gantt, Appellant Pro Se. John F. Bloss, HIGGINS
BENJAMIN PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina; Daniel Charles Nash,
MORGAN, HERRING, MORGAN, GREEN & ROSENBLUTT, LLC, High Point,
North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Iris Sapp Gantt, a pro se civil litigant, appeals the
district court’s order dismissing Gantt’s civil action for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. See Durden v. United States,
736 F.3d
296, 300 (4th Cir. 2013) (stating that dismissals for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction are reviewed de novo). Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See
Gantt v. Morgan, No. 1:12-cv-01123-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C. Sept. 4,
2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2