# Floyd v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · March 9, 2005

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1015640

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 9, 2005
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1015640

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7986

ELIZABETH MARIE RUSHING FLOYD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DAVID A. BROWN, an individual; ROBERT
POTTER, an individual; RICHARD VOORHEES, an
individual; THOMAS WIDMAN, an individual,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. H. Brent McKnight,
District Judge. (CA-03-554-MCK)

Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 9, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elizabeth Marie Rushing Floyd, Appellant Pro Se. James Michael
Sullivan, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Elizabeth Marie Rushing Floyd appeals the district

court’s order denying her motion to vacate the court’s September

24, 2004, order. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Floyd v. Brown, No. CA-03-554-MCK (W.D.N.C.

Nov. 22, 2004). 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

- 2 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1015640. Public record. Not legal advice.