Iredell County v. Elizabeth Tallant

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 27, 2023
• Docket: 21-1780
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1780 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1780

IREDELL COUNTY, State of North Carolina,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ELIZABETH S. TALLANT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00058-KDB-DSC)

Submitted: March 17, 2023 Decided: March 27, 2023

Before KING, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elizabeth S. Tallant, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-1780 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Elizabeth S. Tallant appeals the district court’s order remanding this action to state

court, denying Tallant’s motion to recuse the district court judge, and denying as moot

Tallant’s motions for an injunction to stop the state court hearings or to transfer venue, to

appoint counsel, for electronic filing, for equal access to the courts, to dismiss the state

criminal charges, and to expunge the charges. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. ∗ Iredell Cnty. v. Tallant,

No. 5:21-cv-00058-KDB-DSC (W.D.N.C. June 21, 2021). We deny Tallant’s motion to

appoint counsel. 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

∗ Contrary to the district court’s conclusion, Tallant asserts that she is multiracial and, as such, is a racial minority. However, Tallant has not shown that “it can be clearly predicted by reason of the operation of a pervasive and explicit state or federal law” that her rights will be violated by being tried in state court. See Noel v. McCain, 538 F.2d 633, 635 (4th Cir. 1976) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) was not appropriate.