Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01528/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01528-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Linda Martin Curtis
Appellee
Linda A. Evans
Appellant
April Hanning
Appellee
Linda Million
Appellee
George L. Perry
Appellee
Pitt County Department of Social Services
Appellee
Cynthia M. Ross
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1528

LINDA A. EVANS,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

PITT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; GEORGE L. PERRY, 

Director of Pitt County Social Services in his official 

capacity; APRIL HANNING, in her individual capacity; 

CYNTHIA M. ROSS, in her individual capacity; LINDA MARTIN 

CURTIS, in her individual capacity; LINDA MILLION, in her 

individual capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

District Judge. (4:12-cv-00226-FL)

Submitted: September 29, 2015 Decided: October 2, 2015

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Linda A. Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Christopher Hart, 

SUMRELL, SUGG, CARMICHAEL, HICKS & HART, PA, New Bern, North 

Carolina, for Appellees. Linda Martin Curtis, Appellee Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1528 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/02/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Linda A. Evans filed a complaint against the Pitt County 

Department of Social Services (“DSS”), George Perry, April 

Hanning, Cynthia Ross, Linda Million, and Linda Curtis alleging 

claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and under state law. 

The district court accepted the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and dismissed all of Evans’ claims against DSS, Perry, 

Ross, and Million except her claims of procedural due process 

violations.* The court later granted summary judgment in favor 

of Curtis on Evans’ remaining claims. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we 

grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district 

court’s orders. 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

 * On Perry, Ross, and Million’s previous appeal of the 

district court’s interlocutory order denying them absolute 

immunity from Evans’ claims of procedural due process 

violations, we vacated the portion of the district court’s order 

allowing those claims to go forward and remanded with 

instructions to dismiss those claims. Those issues are

therefore not before this court in the current appeal. 

Appeal: 15-1528 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/02/2015 Pg: 2 of 2