Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01435/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01435-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rene Betancourt
Appellee
D.C.L.
Appellant
Linda Fry
Appellee
Latoya M. Harris
Appellee
Davada C. Loughlin
Appellant
Britt S. Moore
Appellant
North Carolina Department of Health and Human Resources

Vance County
Appellee
Vance County Department of Social Services
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1435

DAVADA C. LOUGHLIN; D.C.L., Davada C. Loughlin for D.C.L., 

a minor; BRITT S. MOORE,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

VANCE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; LINDA FRY, 

Director at Vance County Department of Social Services; RENE 

BETANCOURT, Social Work Supervisor at Vance County 

Department of Social Services; LATOYA M. HARRIS, Case 

Worker, Child Services at Vance County Department of Social 

Services; VANCE COUNTY,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

District Judge. (5:14-cv-00219-FL)

Submitted: September 9, 2015 Decided: September 11, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 15-1435 Doc: 25 Filed: 09/11/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Davada C. Loughlin, D.C.L., Britt S. Moore, Appellants Pro Se. 

Sonny Sade Haynes, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, 

Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1435 Doc: 25 Filed: 09/11/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellants seek to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 

dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Loughlin v. Vance Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., No. 5:14-cv-00219-

FL (E.D.N.C. April 1, 2015). 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.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-1435 Doc: 25 Filed: 09/11/2015 Pg: 3 of 3