UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1325
SHARON THOMAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NC; UNIVERSITY OF NC; UNIVERSITY OF NC BOARD OF
GOVERNORS; UNIVERSITY OF NC AT CHAPEL HILL; UNC HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM; ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT; ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES; BEVERLY PERDUE, Individually and
Official Capacity; ROY COOPER, Individually and Official
Capacity; ERSKINE B. BOWLES, Individually and Official
Capacity; THOMAS W. ROSS, Individually and Official
Capacity; HANNAH D. GAGE, Individually and Official
Capacity; HOLDEN THOPE, Individually and Official Capacity;
BRENDA RICHARDSON MALONE, Individually and Official
Capacity; JOHN M. THORP, JR., Individually and Official
Capacity; CONNIE RENZ, Individually and Official Capacity;
ZACONJI TITUS, Individually and Official Capacity; LAURIE T.
CHAREST, Individually and Official Capacity; NANCY CONSTON,
Individually and Official Capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-00038-FDW-DSC)
Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 3, 2013
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sharon Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Gary Robert Govert, Assistant
Solicitor, Raleigh, North Carolina; Rajeev K. Premakumar, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina; Sonny Sade Haynes, James R. Morgan, Jr.,
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Sharon Thomas appeals the district court’s order
granting the defendants’ motion for reconsideration and
dismissing her complaint in part for failing to state a claim
and in part for failing to timely serve process. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we grant Thomas leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Thomas v. North
Carolina, No. 3:12-cv-00038-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C. Feb. 13, 2013).
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