Myers v. Bizzell

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:12-cv-00714-BO) Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Loushonda Myers, Appellant Pro Se. Grant Stephen Mitchell, Timothy C. Smith, MITCHELL LAW GROUP, Fayetteville, North Carolina; Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Angenette R. Stephenson, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Brian Peter Durelle Oten, NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR, Raleigh, North Carolina; David Franklin Mills, DAVID F. MILLS, PA, Smithfield, North Carolina; John Peter O'Hale, NARRON, O'HALE & WHITTINGTON, PA, Smithfield, North Carolina; John T. Holden, Joseph Lawrence Nelson, DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, Charlotte, North Carolina; Roger Allen Askew, John Albert Maxfield, WAKE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; James Raleigh Baker, HEDRICK, GARDNER, KINCHELOE & GAROFALO, LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina; Matthew Fesak, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; Daniel Gerald Cahill, Caroline P. Mackie, POYNER SPRUILL LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Loushonda Myers appeals the district court's orders granting Defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment and denying reconsideration of its orders and the magistrate judge's orders in her civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Myers v. Bizzell, No. 5:12-cv-00714-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 8, 2016; Jan. 19, 2016; July 30, 2015; July 28, 2015; Apr. 23, 2015; Jan. 22, 2015; filed Dec. 2, 2014, entered Dec. 3, 2014; Aug. 16, 2013). We grant Myers' motion to exceed the informal brief length limitations and deny as moot her request to amend or correct the caption. 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