McGee v. NC State Bar, No. 05-1767 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1767 MICHAEL H. MCGEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; L. THOMAS LUNSFORD, Secretary, NC State Bar; DUDLEY HUMPHREY, President of NC State Bar; DAVID R. JOHNSON, Counsel for the NC State Bar; A. ROOT EDMONSON, Counsel for the NC State Bar; STEPHEN E. CULBRETH, NC Bar DHC; JOSEPH G. MADDREY, NC Bar DHC; MARGUERITE P. WATTS, NC Bar DHC; ELIZABETH BUNTING, NC Bar DHC; R. MITCHELL TYLER, NC Bar DHC; CALVIN E. MURPHY, Vice-President, NC State Bar, in their official and individual capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-860-5-1FL) Submitted: October 11, 2006 Decided: November 13, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael H. McGee, Appellant Pro Se. Carolin Delancey Bakewell, Thomas Frederick Moffitt, NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR, Raleigh, North Carolina; William Norris Farrell, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Grady L. Balentine, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael H. McGee appeals the district court s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We have Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. McGee v. North Carolina State Bar, No. CA-04-860-5-1FL (E.D.N.C. June 1, 2005). We deny as moot McGee s motions to expedite and for relief from stay and 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 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.