UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1409

SUSAN W. VAUGHAN, an individual,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SHANNON FOLTZ, an individual; SAMANTHA HURD, an individual; KRISTEN HARRIS, an individual; KATHLYN ROMM, an individual; RAY MATUSKO; STEPHANIE RYDER, an individual; CHUCK LYCETT, an individual; MELANIE CORPREW, an individual; JAY BURRUS, an individual; OFFICER DOE, an individual; DOES 3-10; MELISSA TURNAGE; KATHERINE MCCARRON; OFFICER MIKE SUDDUTH; OFFICER CARL WHITE; DOUG DOUGHTIE, an individual,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

HON. ROBERT TRIVETTE, an individual; MEADER HARRISS, an individual; HON. AMBER DAVIS, an individual; COURTNEY HULL, an individual; ASST. DIST. ATTORNEY EULA REID, an individual; DARE COUNTY; CURRITUCK COUNTY; KILL DEVIL HILLS; SUSAN HARMON-SCOTT, an individual; MERLEE AUSTIN, an individual,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00061-FL)

Submitted: September 21, 2020 Decided: October 9, 2020 Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Susan W. Vaughan, Appellant Pro Se. Kathryn Hicks Shields, Assistant Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Christopher J. Geis, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Dan M. Hartzog, Jr., HARTZOG LAW GROUP, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

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

of the magistrate judge, dismissing a portion of Vaughan’s

complaint

under

(e)(2)(B), and denying relief on the remainder of Vaughan’s

complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Vaughan v. Foltz, No. 2:16-cv-00061-

FL (E.D.N.C. Oct. 27, 2017 & Mar. 19, 2019). We deny as moot Vaughan’s motion to file

electronically, and 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

3