Myrtle Cross, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Harold E. Russell, Defendant-appellee, 16 F.3d 409 (4th Cir. 1994)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 16 F.3d 409 (4th Cir. 1994)

Submitted Jan. 20, 1994. Decided Feb. 2, 1994


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-93-542-5-F).

Myrtle Cross, pro se.

Ashley Hamilton Story, Claire B. Casey, Durham, Wyche, Story, Whitley & Henderson, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing her action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cross v. Russell, No. CA-93-542-5-F (E.D.N.C. Oct. 28, 1993). We deny Appellant's Motion to Appoint Counsel 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