Katherine Harris v. Cabarrus County Board of Ed., No. 17-1199 (4th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1199 KATHERINE HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CABARRUS COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a body corporate; UNION COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a body corporate; CHARLOTTEMECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION, a body corporate; STANLY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a body corporate; ALBEMARLE CITY SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION, a body corporate; NORTH CAROLINA RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR TEACHERS AND STATE EMPLOYEES BOARD OF TRUSTEES; BARRY SHEPHERD, in his individual capacity; KATHRYN AUGER, in her individual capacity; GARY AUSTIN, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00702-CCE-JEP) Submitted: May 25, 2017 Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Decided: May 30, 2017 Katherine Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Robert J. King, III, Daniel F. E. Smith, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina; Terry LaMonte Wallace, WALLACE CHILDERS PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina; Kirk London Bowling, BOWLING LAW FIRM, PLLC, Albemarle, North Carolina; Robert Michael Curran, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Katherine Harris appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint as time-barred. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Harris v. Cabarrus Cty. Bd. of Educ., No. 1:16-cv-00702-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C. Jan. 26, 2017). We deny Harris’ motion to amend her complaint. 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 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.