UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1499
JUNE BRYANT-BUNCH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT;
WANDIE VINCENT, Sheriff; DETECTIVE REED;
DEPUTY PARKER; JANE DOE, Deputy; MAGISTRATE
SHEARN; BOYD BENNETT, Director of Prisons;
LAWRENCE SOLOMON; NEAL VAUGHAN; C. A. COLEMAN,
Lieutenant; LIEUTENANT POWELL; OFFICER MASON;
OFFICER PHILLIPS; OFFICER ARCHER,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 06-1765
JUNE BRYANT-BUNCH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT;
WANDIE VINCENT, Sheriff; DETECTIVE REED;
DEPUTY PARKER; JANE DOE, Deputy; BOYD BENNETT,
Director of Prisons; LAWRENCE SOLOMON; NEAL
VAUGHAN; C. A. COLEMAN, Lieutenant; LIEUTENANT
POWELL; OFFICER MASON; OFFICER PHILLIPS;
OFFICER ARCHER,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
MAGISTRATE SHEARN,
Defendant.
Appeals from the United States District Courts for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City and Raleigh.
James C. Dever III, District Judge. (2:05-cv-00034-D)
Submitted: November 15, 2006 Decided: November 17, 2006
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
June Bryant-Bunch, Appellant Pro Se. Charles J. Vaughan, Woodland,
North Carolina; Grady L. Balentine, James Philip Allen, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; James
Redfern Morgan, Jr., Robert T. Numbers, II, WOMBLE, CARLYLE,
SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, June Bryant-Bunch appeals
the district court’s orders granting Appellee Shearn’s motion to
dismiss and granting the remaining Appellees’ motion to dismiss her
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See Bryant-Bunch v. Northampton County Sheriff’s Dep’t, No.
2:05-cv-00034-D (E.D.N.C. Apr. 7, 2006 & June 15, 2006). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -