Case Name: Stephen Thomas YELVERTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YELVERTON FARMS, LTD.; Phyllis Y. Edmundson, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-23
Citations: 623 F. App'x 72
Docket Number: No. 15-1558
Parties: Stephen Thomas YELVERTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YELVERTON FARMS, LTD.; Phyllis Y. Edmundson, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 72–73

Head Matter:
Stephen Thomas YELVERTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YELVERTON FARMS, LTD.; Phyllis Y. Edmundson, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-1558.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit,
Submitted: Oct. 30, 2015.
Decided: Nov. 23, 2015.
Stephen Thomas Yelverton, Appellant Pro Se. John C. Bircher, III, White & Allen, PA, New Bern, North Carolina; John Pierce Marshall, Matthew Scott Sullivan, White & Allen, PA, Kinston, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stephen Thomas Yelverton appeals from the district court's orders dismissing his complaint against Yelverton Farms, Ltd., and Phyllis Y. Edmundson for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and denying his motion for reconsideration and for leave to amend the complaint. We have reviewed the record and the parties' arguments on appeal, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Yelverton v. Yelverton Farms, Ltd., No. 5:14-cv-00365-FL, 2015 WL 847393 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 26, 2015; Apr. 22, 2015). We deny Yelverton's motion to remand the case, and we deny his motion for leave to file a supplemental brief addressing issues he intends to present on appeal from an order entered in a separate case in the district court. 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.