Estate of Dalenko v. File

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-2223

ESTATE OF LOUIS DALENKO, by Personal Representative and Executrix; CAROL BENNETT,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

GILBERT W. FILE, IV, Wake Cty Clerks of Superior Court, and individually; ROBERT MONROE; LOU A. NEWMAN, Individually; CORINNE G. RUSSELL, Wake Cty Deputy Attorney; NARLY CASHWELL, Sr.; JOHN C. MARTIN, Justice of NC COA; SIDNEY S. EAGLES, JR., Justice of NC COA; MARTHA A. GEER, Justice of NC COA; UNNAMED RESEARCH ASSISTANT, Each also in their individual capacities; WAKE COUNTY; NARLY L. CASHWELL; DONALD W. STEPHENS; HENRY W. HIGHT, JR., individually; JANET I. PUESCHEL; MICHAEL R. FERRELL, Wake Cty Attorney, and individually; HUGH STEVENS, d/b/a G,H&S Everett, individually; EVERETT, GASKINS, HANCOCK & STEVENS, LLP; THE NEWS AND OBSERVER PUBLISHING COMPANY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-550-5-H; CA-04-438-5-H; CA-04-811-5-H; CA- 04-301-5-H)

Submitted: June 7, 2006 Decided: June 23, 2006

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Estate of Louis Dalenko; Carol Bennett, Appellants Pro Se. Grady L. Balentine, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Gary S. Parsons, Patricia Pursell Kerner, Hannah Gray Styron, TROUTMAN & SANDERS, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Michael R. Ferrell, Corinne Griffin Russell, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE COUNTY OF WAKE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Hugh Stevens, EVERETT, GASKINS, HANCOCK & STEVENS, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Carol Bennett and the Estate of Louis Dalenko appeal the

district court’s orders and judgments dismissing the complaints and

sanctioning Bennett. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See Dalenko v. File, Nos. CA-03-550-5-H; CA-

04-301-5-H; CA-04-438-5-H; CA-04-811-5-H (E.D.N.C. Feb. 5, 2004;

Mar. 2, 2004; Dec. 21, 2004; Mar. 16, 2005; Aug. 26, 2005). 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

- 3 -