Court Opinion

ID: 9956783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 21:00:44.26329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:51.228531
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1727      Doc: 15         Filed: 04/01/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-1727

        SUSAN W. VAUGHAN,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        KATHLYN S. ROMM, an individual; RAY MATUSKO, an individual;
        COURTNEY HULL, an individual; MEADER W. HARRISS, III, an individual;
        DEPUTY CLERK DOE, an individual,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Elizabeth City. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (2:21-cv-00042-D)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                          Decided: April 1, 2024

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Susan W. Vaughan, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1727         Doc: 15     Filed: 04/01/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Susan W. Vaughan appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation

        of the magistrate judge and dismissing Vaughan’s 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 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 judgment. Vaughan v. Romm, No. 2:21-

        cv-00042-D (E.D.N.C. June 27, 2022). We deny Vaughan’s motion to correct errors in her

        informal brief. 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