The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
15-1435•DAVADA C. LOUGHLIN; D.C.L., Davada C. Loughlin for D.C.L., a minor; BRITT S. MOORE v. Vance County Department of Social Services
15-1435Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 11, 2015
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1435
DAVADA C. LOUGHLIN; D.C.L., Davada C. Loughlin for D.C.L.,
a minor; BRITT S. MOORE,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
VANCE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; LINDA FRY,
Director at Vance County Department of Social Services; RENE
BETANCOURT, Social Work Supervisor at Vance County
Department of Social Services; LATOYA M. HARRIS, Case
Worker, Child Services at Vance County Department of Social
Services; VANCE COUNTY,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:14-cv-00219-FL)
Submitted: September 9, 2015 Decided: September 11, 2015
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Davada C. Loughlin, D.C.L., Britt S. Moore, Appellants Pro Se.
Sonny Sade Haynes, WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Appellants seek to appeal the district court’s order
accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court.
Loughlin v. Vance Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., No. 5:14-cv-00219-
FL (E.D.N.C. April 1, 2015). 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.
DISMISSED
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.