Court Opinion

ID: 9902073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 21:00:43.770194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:44.448836
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1698      Doc: 7        Filed: 11/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1698

        KERSTIN LINDEMANN-MOSES, an individual,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        BARBARA JACKMON, an individual; CHRISTOPHER ANDRE JACKMON, an
        individual,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:20-cv-00655-TDS-JEP)

        Submitted: November 16, 2023                                Decided: November 21, 2023

        Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kerstin Lindemann-Moses, Appellant Pro Se.         Barbara Jackmon; Christopher Andre
        Jackmon, Appellees Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1698     Doc: 7        Filed: 11/21/2023   Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Kerstin Lindemann-Moses appeals the district court’s orders granting in part

        Defendant Barbara Jackmon’s motion to dismiss and granting summary judgment in favor

        of Defendants on Lindemann-Moses’ remaining civil claims. We have reviewed the record

        and find no reversible error.   Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

        Lindemann-Moses v. Jackmon, No. 1:20-cv-00655-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C. Apr. 19, 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