Court Opinion

ID: 9892792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 21:00:44.986173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:42:32.280526
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1259      Doc: 16         Filed: 10/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1259

        SABRINA GIBSON,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        THOMAS F. ROUPAS, JR.; PARR INVESTMENTS, LLC,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:22-cv-00517-WO-JLW)

        Submitted: October 19, 2023                                   Decided: October 23, 2023

        Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Sabrina Gibson, Appellant Pro Se. Taniya Donyale Reaves, LAW OFFICE OF TANIYA
        D. REAVES, PLLC, Browns Summit, North Carolina; Robert J. King, III, Kasi Wahlers
        Robinson, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, LLP,
        Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1259      Doc: 16         Filed: 10/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Sabrina Gibson appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action for

        failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and denying as moot her request

        for a temporary restraining order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

        error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Gibson v. Roupas, No. 1:22-

        cv-00517-WO-JLW (M.D.N.C. Feb. 9 & Mar. 15, 2023). 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

                                                     2