Court Opinion

ID: 9382862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-28 21:00:34.14882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:42.249055
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1780      Doc: 11         Filed: 03/27/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-1780

        IREDELL COUNTY, State of North Carolina,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ELIZABETH S. TALLANT,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00058-KDB-DSC)

        Submitted: March 17, 2023                                         Decided: March 27, 2023

        Before KING, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Elizabeth S. Tallant, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1780         Doc: 11        Filed: 03/27/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Elizabeth S. Tallant appeals the district court’s order remanding this action to state

        court, denying Tallant’s motion to recuse the district court judge, and denying as moot

        Tallant’s motions for an injunction to stop the state court hearings or to transfer venue, to

        appoint counsel, for electronic filing, for equal access to the courts, to dismiss the state

        criminal charges, and to expunge the charges. We have reviewed the record and find no

        reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. ∗ Iredell Cnty. v. Tallant,

        No. 5:21-cv-00058-KDB-DSC (W.D.N.C. June 21, 2021). We deny Tallant’s motion to

        appoint counsel. 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

               ∗
                 Contrary to the district court’s conclusion, Tallant asserts that she is multiracial
        and, as such, is a racial minority. However, Tallant has not shown that “it can be clearly
        predicted by reason of the operation of a pervasive and explicit state or federal law” that
        her rights will be violated by being tried in state court. See Noel v. McCain, 538 F.2d 633,
        635 (4th Cir. 1976) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, removal under 28 U.S.C.
        § 1443(1) was not appropriate.

                                                       2