Case Name: Cindy NELSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Armfield WONG; Valerie Zuckerman; Janet Demarzo; George Pataki; Dudley Lehman; David Freundlich; Jordan Trager; Heather Norton; Pheon Beal; Mike Easley, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-01
Citations: 155 F. App'x 719
Docket Number: No. 05-1502
Parties: Cindy NELSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Armfield WONG; Valerie Zuckerman; Janet Demarzo; George Pataki; Dudley Lehman; David Freundlich; Jordan Trager; Heather Norton; Pheon Beal; Mike Easley, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 155
Pages: 719–720

Head Matter:
Cindy NELSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Armfield WONG; Valerie Zuckerman; Janet Demarzo; George Pataki; Dudley Lehman; David Freundlich; Jordan Trager; Heather Norton; Pheon Beal; Mike Easley, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-1502.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 22, 2005.
Decided: Dec. 1, 2005.
Cindy Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Michael Gatto, Suffolk County Department of Law, Hauppauge, New York; Joseph C. Moore, III, Allen & Moore, Raleigh, North Carolina; Peter H. Schiff, New York State Office of the Attorney General, Abany, New York; W.A. Holland, Jr., Smithfield, North Carolina; J. Mark Payne, Johnston County Attorney, Smithfield, North Carolina; Chris Zueco Sinha, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Cindy Nelson appeals the district court's order dismissing her civil action seeking review of state court judgments. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Nelson v. Wong, No. CA-04-307-5-F (E.D.N.C. Mar. 24, 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