Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
24-6196•Marcus Antonio Satterfield v. Hollie McCaddams, Ada in Superior Courts Roxboro Nc Person County Sued in Their…
24-6196Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit02.08.2024
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6196
MARCUS ANTONIO SATTERFIELD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HOLLIE MCCADDAMS, ADA IN SUPERIOR COURTS ROXBORO NC
PERSON COUNTY SUED IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; MERILYN P. NEWELL, MAYOR OF ROXBORO CITY OF
ROXBORO SUED IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JOSH STEIN,
ATTORNEY GENERALS COMMISSIONER SUED IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; ROXBORO ATTORNEY GENERALS;
ADMINISTRATORS OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY COMMISSIONER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:23-cv-01071-WO-JLW)
Submitted: July 30, 2024 Decided: August 2, 2024
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcus Antonio Satterfield, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Marcus Antonio Satterfield appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Satterfield’s civil complaint under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Limiting our review to the issues raised in Satterfield’s informal
brief, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b);
Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important
document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that
brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Satterfield v. Mccaddams,
No. 1:23-cv-01071-WO-JLW (M.D.N.C. Feb. 9, 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.