Court Opinion

ID: 9375106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 21:01:14.039771+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.019900
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2257      Doc: 6        Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2257

        HELENE MCCARTHY-STAPLES,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        M. BRADLEY BRICKHOUSE; COLLEEN T. DICKERSON; FRANK J.
        DRISCOLL, JR.; LISA A. BROCCOLETTI; MARLANDE SLEDGE; SUSANNE
        FERRANTELLI; PAMELA JACK; ALICIA R. WELLONS; TABETHA L.
        TURNER; CHRISTIANNA DOUGHERTY-CUNNINGHAM; MARK D. STILES,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Elizabeth W. Hanes, District Judge. (2:21-cv-00383-EWH-RJK)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                 Decided: February 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Helene McCarthy-Staples, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2257     Doc: 6         Filed: 02/23/2023    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Helene McCarthy-Staples appeals the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C.

        § 1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and declining to exercise

        supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims. We have reviewed the record and find

        no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

        McCarthy-Staples v. Brickhouse, No. 2:21-cv-00383-EWH-RJK (E.D. Va. Nov. 22, 2022).

        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