Case ID: f-appx_120/html/0512-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rose C. POWELL, Plaintiff—Appellant, and Shannell Powell; Shamela Powell; Ruenall Fredrick, Plaintiffs, v. Tony A. KELLER; Jorge Sosa; Jason Coy Reid; Timothy James Brewer; Larry Waters; Gretchen C.F. Shappert; Richard L. Voorhees; Carl Horn, III, Magistrate Judge; Gregory A. Forest; Jayme Miller; United States Marshal’s Service; Catawba County; Catawba County Board of Commissioners; Sheriff of Catawba County; Catawba County Sheriffs Department; Coldwell Banker Boyd & Hassell, Incorporated Realtors; Elvalorie Matthews; Richard McDonnell; Mark T. Calloway; Newton Police Department; Conover Police Department; William A. Brafford, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 04-2116.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 9, 2005.
    Decided Feb. 14, 2005.
    Rose C. Powell, Appellant pro se. James Redfern Morgan, Jr., Robert Danny Mason, Jr., Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Edward Laughtin Eatman, Jr., Elizabeth Ann Martineau, Hedrick, Eat-man, Gardner & Kincheloe, Charlotte, North Carolina; Scott Douglas MacLatchie, Sean Francis Perrin, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Jennifer Ann Youngs, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; William Anthony Navarro, Wishart, Norris, Henninger & Pittman, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Rose C. Powell appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to defendants on her civil rights complaint that alleged violations based upon the forfeiture of real property. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Powell v. Keller, No. CA-03-160-5-MU (W.D.N.C. Aug. 24, 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