Court Opinion

ID: 9947154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-02 21:00:54.164618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:53.597749
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7111      Doc: 16         Filed: 03/01/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-7111

        LAMAR CANNADY,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        MATTHEW SCHOFIELD, Public Defender, in his individual and official capacity;
        PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE-ADVOCATE OFFICE, County of Polk, in its
        official capacity; COUNTY OF POLK, State of North Carolina funded, in its official
        capacity; POLK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, in its official capacity,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00168-KDB)

        Submitted: February 27, 2024                                      Decided: March 1, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Lamar Cannady, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7111      Doc: 16         Filed: 03/01/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Lamar Cannady appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

        complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We have reviewed the record and find no

        reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Cannady v. Schofield,

        No. 1:23-cv-00168-KDB (W.D.N.C. Sept. 29, 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