Carol Moore v. Steve Mansbery

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1992 Doc: 19 Filed: 07/21/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1992

CAROL D. MOORE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STEVE MANSBERY, Attorney; ALICE C. STUBBS, Attorney; THARRINGTON SMITH, LLP, Law firm, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00739-TDS-JLW)

Submitted: June 24, 2026 Decided: July 21, 2026

Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carol D. Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Felix Hill Allen, IV, Colin Alexander Shive, THARRINGTON SMITH LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1992 Doc: 19 Filed: 07/21/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Carol D. Moore appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Moore’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman * doctrine.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Moore v. Mansbery, No. 1:23-cv-00739-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C., Sep. 23, 2024). 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

* D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); T.M. v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 608 U.S. ---, 2026 WL 1751823, at *5–6 (June 18, 2026) (affirming continued vitality of Rooker-Feldman doctrine).