Iredell County v. Elizabeth Tallant ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 21-1780      Doc: 11         Filed: 03/27/2023     Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 21-1780
    IREDELL COUNTY, State of North Carolina,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ELIZABETH S. TALLANT,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
    Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00058-KDB-DSC)
    Submitted: March 17, 2023                                         Decided: March 27, 2023
    Before KING, THACKER, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Elizabeth S. Tallant, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 21-1780         Doc: 11        Filed: 03/27/2023      Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    Elizabeth S. Tallant appeals the district court’s order remanding this action to state
    court, denying Tallant’s motion to recuse the district court judge, and denying as moot
    Tallant’s motions for an injunction to stop the state court hearings or to transfer venue, to
    appoint counsel, for electronic filing, for equal access to the courts, to dismiss the state
    criminal charges, and to expunge the charges. We have reviewed the record and find no
    reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. ∗ Iredell Cnty. v. Tallant,
    No. 5:21-cv-00058-KDB-DSC (W.D.N.C. June 21, 2021). We deny Tallant’s motion to
    appoint counsel. 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
    ∗
    Contrary to the district court’s conclusion, Tallant asserts that she is multiracial
    and, as such, is a racial minority. However, Tallant has not shown that “it can be clearly
    predicted by reason of the operation of a pervasive and explicit state or federal law” that
    her rights will be violated by being tried in state court. See Noel v. McCain, 
    538 F.2d 633
    ,
    635 (4th Cir. 1976) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, removal under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1443
    (1) was not appropriate.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-1780

Filed Date: 3/27/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/28/2023