Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02028/USCOURTS-ca4-16-02028-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2028

GEORGE ANDREW BRATTON, an individual,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

and

THE ESTATE OF GEENA GEE BRATTON, Decedent,

 Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, a Business Entity or Governmental 

Agency; PAT MCCORY, Gov., an Individual; MECKLENBURG COUNTY 

DIVISION OF SOCIAL SERVICES, (DSS), a Business Entity or 

Governmental Agency; PEGGY EAGAN, Director of DSS, an 

individual; CHRIS TAYLOR, badge #211 in his individual and 

official capacity of Lieutenant; MCDOWELL COUNTY SHERIFF 

DEPARTMENT; CEDERBROOK RESIDENTIAL CENTER, a business 

entity; THE ESTATE OF HENRY ROBERT BRATTON, JR., Deceased; 

MARIAN DIEBEL-BRATTON, individual; ARLENE BROKAW, 

individual and in her official capacity; MCEWEN FUNERAL 

SERVICE PINEVILLE CHAPEL CITY, a business entity; NORTH 

CAROLINA ADOPTION AGENCY, a business entity or governmental 

agency,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:16-cv-00021-FL)

Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 19, 2016

Appeal: 16-2028 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/19/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Andrew Bratton, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-2028 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/19/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

George Andrew Bratton appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Bratton’s motion to 

assign counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Bratton v. North Carolina, No. 5:16-cv-00021-FL 

(E.D.N.C. Aug. 31, 2016). 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

Appeal: 16-2028 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/19/2016 Pg: 3 of 3