Case Name: Elaine MURRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE; The Cumberland County Board of Commissioners; Cumberland County Business Council; The Lundy Group; 300 Block Investors LLC; Pennink & Strother Property Management, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-29
Citations: 207 F. App'x 345
Docket Number: No. 06-2017
Parties: Elaine MURRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE; The Cumberland County Board of Commissioners; Cumberland County Business Council; The Lundy Group; 300 Block Investors LLC; Pennink & Strother Property Management, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 207
Pages: 345–345

Head Matter:
Elaine MURRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE; The Cumberland County Board of Commissioners; Cumberland County Business Council; The Lundy Group; 300 Block Investors LLC; Pennink & Strother Property Management, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-2017.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 21, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 29, 2006.
Elaine Murry, Appellant Pro Se. James R. Nance, Jr., Reid, Lewis, Deese, Nance & Person, Fayetteville, North Carolina; Karen M. McDonald, City of Fayetteville, Fayetteville, North Carolina; Douglas Edward Canders, Cumberland County Attorney’s Office, Fayetteville, North Carolina; John Roseboro, The Banks Law Firm, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; Steven B. Epstein, Raymond Albert Starling, Hunton & Williams, Raleigh, North Carolina; Garris Neil Yarborough, The Yarborough Law Firm, Fayetteville, North Carolina; Steven James O’Connor, McCoy, Weaver, Wiggins, Cleveland & Raper, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Elaine Murry appeals the district court's order dismissing her civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1982 and 2000d (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Murry v. City of Fayetteville, No. 5:05-CV-861-BR (E.D.N.C. Aug. 17, 2006). 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.