Court Opinion

ID: 9956784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 21:00:45.087411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:54.922869
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2168      Doc: 7         Filed: 04/01/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-2168

        NOEL VINCENT THOMAS,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        NORTH CAROLINA MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, NCMLIC;
        MICHAEL L. LAWRENCE, NCMLIC CEO; ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
        INSURANCE, ALDOI; JAMES FINN, ALDOI CID; NORTH CAROLINA
        DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, NCDOI; JOHN HOOMANI, NCDOI GC,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:22-cv-00291-M-KS)

        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        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Noel Vincent Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2168       Doc: 7        Filed: 04/01/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

                  Noel Vincent Thomas appeals the district court’s orders accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Thomas’ complaint for failure to

        state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and denying reconsideration. We have

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

        orders.     Thomas v. N.C. Mut. Life Ins. Co., No. 5:22-cv-00291-M-KS (E.D.N.C.

        May 2, 2023 & Oct. 12, 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