Floyd v. Brown
This text of Floyd v. Brown (Floyd v. Brown) 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.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7986
ELIZABETH MARIE RUSHING FLOYD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DAVID A. BROWN, an individual; ROBERT POTTER, an individual; RICHARD VOORHEES, an individual; THOMAS WIDMAN, an individual,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. H. Brent McKnight, District Judge. (CA-03-554-MCK)
Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 9, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elizabeth Marie Rushing Floyd, Appellant Pro Se. James Michael Sullivan, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Elizabeth Marie Rushing Floyd appeals the district
court’s order denying her motion to vacate the court’s September
24, 2004, order. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Floyd v. Brown, No. CA-03-554-MCK (W.D.N.C.
Nov. 22, 2004). 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
- 2 -
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Floyd v. Brown, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/floyd-v-brown-ca4-2005.