Broughton v. Aldridge

Fourth Circuit

Broughton v. Aldridge

445 F. App'x 656

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 9, 2011

DocketNos. 11-1115, 11-1186

StatusPublished

This text of 445 F. App'x 656 (Broughton v. Aldridge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Broughton v. Aldridge, 445 F. App'x 656 (4th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Celeste G. Broughton appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying her post-judgment motions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible [657]*657error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Broughton v. Aldridge, 5:10-cv-00231-FL, 2010 WL 4809086 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 17, 2010), (Jan. 28, 2011), 2011 WL 677280 (Feb. 15, 2011). We deny Broughton’s motions to seal the district court’s opinion, for a ruling on the motion to seal, and to disqualify the court’s North Carolina judges. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Celeste G. Broughton appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint and denying her post-judgment motions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible [657]*657error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Broughton v. Aldridge, 5:10-cv-00231-FL, 2010 WL 4809086 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 17, 2010), (Jan. 28, 2011), 2011 WL 677280 (Feb. 15, 2011). We deny Broughton’s motions to seal the district court’s opinion, for a ruling on the motion to seal, and to disqualify the court’s North Carolina judges. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

445 F. App'x 656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broughton-v-aldridge-ca4-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack