Case Name: Katherine HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA; North Carolina Department of Public Instruction; North Carolina Teachers and State Employees Retirement System; Dr. Barry Shepherd, in His Official and Individual Capacity; Kathryn Auger, in Her Official and Individual Capacity; Gary Austin, In his official and individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-21
Citations: 706 F. App'x 815
Docket Number: No. 17-2271
Parties: Katherine HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA; North Carolina Department of Public Instruction; North Carolina Teachers and State Employees Retirement System; Dr. Barry Shepherd, in His Official and Individual Capacity; Kathryn Auger, in Her Official and Individual Capacity; Gary Austin, In his official and individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 706
Pages: 815–815

Head Matter:
Katherine HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA; North Carolina Department of Public Instruction; North Carolina Teachers and State Employees Retirement System; Dr. Barry Shepherd, in His Official and Individual Capacity; Kathryn Auger, in Her Official and Individual Capacity; Gary Austin, In his official and individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-2271
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 19, 2017
Decided: December 21, 2017
Katherine Harris, Appellant Pro Se.
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Katherine Harris appeals the district court's order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Harris v. North Carolina, No. 3:17-cv-00548-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2017). 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