Morris v. Potter

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 5, 2006
Docket05-2153
StatusUnpublished

This text of Morris v. Potter (Morris v. Potter) 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
Morris v. Potter, (4th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-2153

CORNELIA MORRIS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

DARRYL GARNER,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Wallace W. Dixon, Magistrate Judge. (CA-04-858)

Submitted: May 5, 2006 Decided: June 5, 2006

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cornelia Morris, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Brodish Binkley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Cornelia Morris appeals the magistrate judge’s order

granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss her civil action. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge.

See Morris v. Potter, No. CA-04-858 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 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

* The parties consented to jurisdiction of the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

- 3 -

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Morris v. Potter, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-potter-ca4-2006.