Allen v. L3/Harris Technologies Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:24-CV-444-D KATHY R. ALLEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) L3/HARRIS TECHNOLOGEES, INC., ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) For the reasons stated in the federal defendants’ memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss [D.E. 21], the court GRANTS the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss [D.E. 20].

Likewise, for the reasons stated in the remaining defendants’ memorandum of law in support of their motion to dismiss [D.E. 15], the court GRANTS their motion to dismiss [D.E. 14]. The court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE plaintiffs complaint. The court DENIES as meritless, plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel [D.E. 17]. See, e.g., Jenkins v. Woodard, 109 F.4th 242, 247-50 (4th Cir. 2024); Whisenant v. Yuam, 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4th Cir. 1984), abrogated in part on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 300 n.2 (1989); Cook v. Bounds, 518 F.2d 779, 780 (4th Cir. 1975). On October 7, 2024, the court granted plaintiff's motion to extend time [D.E. 23] and extended the time to respond until December 7, 2024. Plaintiff's motions to extend time [D.E. 24, 25] are DISMISSED AS MOOT . SO ORDERED. This 47 day of December, 2024.

— Dyas hes C. DEVER Il United States District Judge