Court Opinion

ID: 9913861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-28 21:00:55.386707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:10.192732
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6377      Doc: 9        Filed: 12/27/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6377

        CHIVALRY MOORE,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        ORLANDO F. HUDSON, JR., Senior Resident Superior Court Judge; MATTHEW
        COOK, Attorney at Law; CHRIS J. VERMILLION, Detective; DAWN Y.
        BAXTON, Chief Public Defender - 14th District,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cv-00688-CCE-JEP)

        Submitted: December 19, 2023                                Decided: December 27, 2023

        Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Chivalry Moore, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6377      Doc: 9        Filed: 12/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Chivalry Moore appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of

        the magistrate judge and dismissing Moore’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C.

        § 1915A for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and for seeking

        monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. We have reviewed

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

        Moore v. Hudson, No. 1:22-cv-00688-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C. Jan. 4, 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