USCA4 Appeal: 23-1862 Doc: 17 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1862

CARRIE MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHNSTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Johnston County, North Carolina; ELIZABETH WILSON, individually and in her official capacity as Johnston County Social Worker Supervisor; CHANDLER WATSON, individually and in her capacity as Johnston County Social Worker; TABITHA HARDIN, individually and in her capacity as Johnston County Social Worker; ALLAN DELAINE, individually and in his capacity as former attorney for Plaintiff; JOHNSTON COUNTY, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:23-cv-00041-FL)

Submitted: July 29, 2024 Decided: August 1, 2024

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carrie Montgomery, Appellant Pro Se. John Howard Schaeffer, Assistant Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; USCA4 Appeal: 23-1862 Doc: 17 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

Sean Francis Perrin, WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Walter A. Schmidlin, III, STEWART, SCHMIDLIN, BULLOCK & GOURLEY PLLC, Smithfield, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1862 Doc: 17 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM: Carrie Montgomery appeals the district court’s order upholding the magistrate judge’s denial of her motion to appoint counsel and accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Montgomery’s civil action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Montgomery v. Johnston Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., No. 5:23-cv-00041-FL (E.D.N.C. July 26, 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