In re: Taylor Dant

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 5, 2025
• Docket: 25-1671
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1671 Doc: 22 Filed: 08/05/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-1671

In re: TAYLOR MORGAN DANT,

Respondent - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:25-ad-00005)

Submitted: July 18, 2025 Decided: August 5, 2025

Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Taylor Morgan Dant, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1671 Doc: 22 Filed: 08/05/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Taylor Morgan Dant appeals the district court’s order enjoining her from the

practice of law in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina

until she satisfies certain conditions. Having thoroughly reviewed the record and Dant’s

submissions on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

entering the injunction. See In re Morrissey, 305 F.3d 211, 217 (4th Cir. 2002) (stating

standard of review for district court’s decision to discipline attorney); In re Fallin, 255 F.3d

195, 197 (4th Cir. 2001) (explaining when federal court will impose reciprocal discipline

based on state court disciplinary order).

Accordingly, we grant Dant’s motions to withdraw two motions filed in this appeal

(ECF Nos. 17, 19), deem withdrawn Dant’s motions for injunctive relief pending appeal

and to dismiss this appeal (ECF Nos. 14, 18), deny Dant’s emergency motions to stay the

district court’s order (ECF Nos. 15, 20) and amended emergency motion to stay the district

court’s order (ECF No. 21), and affirm the district court’s order. In re Dant, No. 1:25-ad-

00005 (M.D.N.C. May 8, 2025). 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