Monique Williams v. Housing Authority of the City of Raleigh, North Carolina

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1752
MONIQUE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:05-cv-00219-D)
Submitted: February 2, 2009 Decided: February 10, 2009
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark R. Sigmon, GRAEBE, HANNA & WELBORN, PLLC, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Charles T. Francis, Matthew L. Boyatt,
THE FRANCIS LAW FIRM, PLLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Monique Williams appeals the district court’s order
and judgment finding for the Housing Authority of the City of
Raleigh in its decision after a hearing to terminate Williams’
Section 8 housing benefits. Williams claims she was denied due
process because the Hearing Officer considered evidence in her
tenant file and evidence outside the record. She also claims
she was denied due process because she was not able to cross-
examine her landlord because he did not appear. We affirm.
We review the district court’s legal conclusions de
novo and its factual findings for clear error. Virginia
Vermiculite Ltd. v. Historic Green Springs, 307 F.3d 277, 284
(4th Cir. 2002). We find the Hearing Officer’s consideration of
evidence contained in the tenant file and evidence outside the
record to be harmless. The decision to terminate Williams’
Section 8 benefits was supported by the evidence in the decision
letter.
Furthermore, we find Williams was not denied due
process because she did not cross-examine her landlord.
Williams, when given the opportunity, failed to request a
continuance for the purpose of examining her landlord.
Accordingly, she waived her due process right to cross-
examination.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and
judgment. 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 of 3 --