Court Opinion

ID: 9372117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 21:00:26.247593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:32.894599
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1506          Doc: 5        Filed: 02/16/2023   Pg: 1 of 2

                                               UNPUBLISHED

                                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                  No. 22-1506

        RONALD D. METCALF, Parent/advocate, legal guardian as lawful guardian ad
        litem of Minor Child D. J. M.; CLAUDIA METCALF, Parent/advocate, legal
        guardian as lawful guardian ad litem of Minor Child D. J. M,

                                Petitioners - Appellants,

                         and

        In re: D.J.M.,

                                Party Below.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:22-mc-00013-MR-WCM)

        Submitted: January 31, 2023                                    Decided: February 16, 2023

        Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Ron David Metcalf, Claudia Metcalf, Appellants Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1506      Doc: 5        Filed: 02/16/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Ron and Claudia Metcalf appeal the district court’s orders dismissing their “petition

        for review of whole record, and for competent attorney to facilitate procedure” without

        prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), imposing a pre-filing review system, and

        denying their motion to recuse. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

        Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. In re Metcalf, No.

        1:22-mc-00013-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C. Apr. 5 & 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