Celeste G. Broughton v. Charles L. Smith, Iii, Individually and as Agent for Davidson and Jones Development Company Martha Smith, Individually and as Agent for Charles L. Smith, III Davidson and Jones Development Company City of Raleigh, North Carolina City Council of Raleigh, North Carolina Norma D. Burns Mary Cates Geoffrey Elting Anne Franklin Charles Meeker Mary W. Nooe, Individually and as Raleigh, North Carolina City Councilor Avery C. Upchurch, Individually and as Mayor and Raleigh, North Carolina Councilor, Celeste G. Broughton v. Charles L. Smith, Iii, Individually and as Agent for Davidson and Jones Development Company Martha Smith, Individually and as Agent for Charles L. Smith, III Davidson and Jones Development Company City of Raleigh, North Carolina City Council of Raleigh, North Carolina Norma D. Burns Mary Cates Geoffry Elting Anne Franklin Charles Meeker Mary W. Nooe, Individually and as Raleigh, North Carolina City Councilor Avery C. Upchurch, Individually and as Mayo
Celeste G. Broughton v. Charles L. Smith, Iii, Individually and as Agent for Davidson and Jones Development Company Martha Smith, Individually and as Agent for Charles L. Smith, III Davidson and Jones Development Company City of Raleigh, North Carolina City Council of Raleigh, North Carolina Norma D. Burns Mary Cates Geoffrey Elting Anne Franklin Charles Meeker Mary W. Nooe, Individually and as Raleigh, North Carolina City Councilor Avery C. Upchurch, Individually and as Mayor and Raleigh, North Carolina Councilor, Celeste G. Broughton v. Charles L. Smith, Iii, Individually and as Agent for Davidson and Jones Development Company Martha Smith, Individually and as Agent for Charles L. Smith, III Davidson and Jones Development Company City of Raleigh, North Carolina City Council of Raleigh, North Carolina Norma D. Burns Mary Cates Geoffry Elting Anne Franklin Charles Meeker Mary W. Nooe, Individually and as Raleigh, North Carolina City Councilor Avery C. Upchurch, Individually and as Mayo
Celeste G. Broughton v. Charles L. Smith, Iii, Individually and as Agent for Davidson and Jones Development Company Martha Smith, Individually and as Agent for Charles L. Smith, III Davidson and Jones Development Company City of Raleigh, North Carolina City Council of Raleigh, North Carolina Norma D. Burns Mary Cates Geoffrey Elting Anne Franklin Charles Meeker Mary W. Nooe, Individually and as Raleigh, North Carolina City Councilor Avery C. Upchurch, Individually and as Mayor and Raleigh, North Carolina Councilor, Celeste G. Broughton v. Charles L. Smith, Iii, Individually and as Agent for Davidson and Jones Development Company Martha Smith, Individually and as Agent for Charles L. Smith, III Davidson and Jones Development Company City of Raleigh, North Carolina City Council of Raleigh, North Carolina Norma D. Burns Mary Cates Geoffry Elting Anne Franklin Charles Meeker Mary W. Nooe, Individually and as Raleigh, North Carolina City Councilor Avery C. Upchurch, Individually and as Mayo
3d 421
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished
dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law
of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the
Fourth Circuit.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-90-193-5BR)
Celeste G. Broughton, appellant pro se.
Kurt Eric Linquist, II, Leboeuf, Lamb, Leiby & Macrae, Raleigh, NC;
Michael Terry Medford, Manning, Fulton & Skinner, Raleigh, NC;
Thomas Alexander McCormick, Jr., City Attorney, Raleigh, NC, for
appellees.
E.D.N.C.
AFFIRMED.
Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINSON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's orders granting summary judgment
for all the Defendants, and denying Plaintiff's motions for new trial or
reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 52, 59, and 60. Our review of the record
and the district court's opinions discloses that these appeals are without merit.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Broughton v.
Smith, No. CA-90-193-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Aug. 9, 1993; Sept. 28, 1993). We
deny Appellant's motion to stay decision pending the district court's action on a
post-judgment motion. We 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