Valerie Arroyo v. Vi Lyles, No. 21-1669 (4th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-1669 VALERIE ARROYO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. VI LYLES, Mayor; CITY OF CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA; JULIE EISELT; MECKLENBURG COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; DERRICK MAYO, Detective; GEORGE DUNLAP, Commissioner; CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT; AARON TICKS; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; ELISA CHINN-GARY, Clerk of Court; COURT ADMINISTRATION OF MECKLENBURG COUNTY; SPENCER MERRIWEATHER, District Attorney; MECKLENBURG COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:20-cv-00506-FDW-DSC) Submitted: November 5, 2021 Decided: November 23, 2021 Before FLOYD and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Valerie Arroyo, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Valerie Arroyo appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her complaint and imposing a prefiling injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Arroyo v. Lyles, No. 3:20-cv-00506FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C. May 28, 2021 & July 21, 2021). However, we modify the district court’s dismissal order to clarify that Arroyo’s claims against the Federal Bureau of Investigation are dismissed without prejudice. See Cunningham v. Gen. Dynamics Info. Tech., Inc., 888 F.3d 640, 649 (4th Cir. 2018); S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013). We deny Arroyo’s petition for initial hearing en banc and her motions for a new trial, for an appeal conference, to set aside an interlocutory sua sponte order, and for a trial de novo. 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 AS MODIFIED 2

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.