Sharon Thomas v. State of NC, No. 13-1325 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1325 SHARON THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STATE OF NC; UNIVERSITY OF NC; UNIVERSITY OF NC BOARD OF GOVERNORS; UNIVERSITY OF NC AT CHAPEL HILL; UNC HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT; ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; BEVERLY PERDUE, Individually and Official Capacity; ROY COOPER, Individually and Official Capacity; ERSKINE B. BOWLES, Individually and Official Capacity; THOMAS W. ROSS, Individually and Official Capacity; HANNAH D. GAGE, Individually and Official Capacity; HOLDEN THOPE, Individually and Official Capacity; BRENDA RICHARDSON MALONE, Individually and Official Capacity; JOHN M. THORP, JR., Individually and Official Capacity; CONNIE RENZ, Individually and Official Capacity; ZACONJI TITUS, Individually and Official Capacity; LAURIE T. CHAREST, Individually and Official Capacity; NANCY CONSTON, Individually and Official Capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-00038-FDW-DSC) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 3, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sharon Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Gary Robert Govert, Assistant Solicitor, Raleigh, North Carolina; Rajeev K. Premakumar, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Sonny Sade Haynes, James R. Morgan, Jr., WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Sharon granting the Thomas appeals defendants the motion district for court s order reconsideration and dismissing her complaint in part for failing to state a claim and in part for failing to timely serve process. reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We have Accordingly, we grant Thomas leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Carolina, We No. dispense contentions 3:12-cv-00038-FDW-DSC with are oral argument adequately (W.D.N.C. because presented in Thomas v. North Feb. 13, the facts and the materials 2013). legal before this 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.
