Filed: Sep. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1552 TINIKA S. WARREN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF GREENSBORO, Inspections Department; BRAD TOLBERT; TERRI JONES; MARK WAYMAN; DONALD FOSTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:16-cv-01396-TDS-JLW) Submitted: September 24, 2019 Decided: September 26, 2019 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Cir
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1552 TINIKA S. WARREN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF GREENSBORO, Inspections Department; BRAD TOLBERT; TERRI JONES; MARK WAYMAN; DONALD FOSTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:16-cv-01396-TDS-JLW) Submitted: September 24, 2019 Decided: September 26, 2019 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1552 TINIKA S. WARREN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF GREENSBORO, Inspections Department; BRAD TOLBERT; TERRI JONES; MARK WAYMAN; DONALD FOSTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:16-cv-01396-TDS-JLW) Submitted: September 24, 2019 Decided: September 26, 2019 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tinika S. Warren, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tinika S. Warren appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for settlement. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Warren v. City of Greensboro, No. 1:16-cv-01396-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C. May 10, 2019). 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
