Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Constance Pratt v. Retha Albriton, 18-2231 (2019)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 18-2231 Visitors: 3
Filed: Apr. 10, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2231 CONSTANCE PRATT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RETHA ALBRITON, Pitt County Department of Social Services, Child Protection Division; SOFIA ELLIS, Pitt County Department of Social Services, Child Protection Division; KEISHA ADAMS; JANE DAWSON; MARGARET DIXON; LINDA MIZELLE, Defendants - Appellees, and PITT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Child Protection Division, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Cour
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2231 CONSTANCE PRATT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RETHA ALBRITON, Pitt County Department of Social Services, Child Protection Division; SOFIA ELLIS, Pitt County Department of Social Services, Child Protection Division; KEISHA ADAMS; JANE DAWSON; MARGARET DIXON; LINDA MIZELLE, Defendants - Appellees, and PITT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Child Protection Division, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (4:16-cv-00198-BR) Submitted: March 29, 2019 Decided: April 10, 2019 Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Constance Pratt, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Christopher Hart, SUMRELL, SUGG, CARMICHAEL, HICKS & HART, PA, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Constance Pratt appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granting summary judgment to Appellees in Pratt’s civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Pratt v. Albriton, No. 4:16-cv-00198-BR (E.D.N.C. Sept. 24, 2018). 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 3
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