Albert Marquavious Lamar Anderson v. Novant Health, et al.

1 IF I HE AT oHE Po«NT ALLOWS TtlS iWSTWfe Grounds Fb& RELIEF FROm 3u<3UAEHT fNcluDlHG 1®6AL WAS Rhlb MoTioM iNSFFfeCWH AS T?B MiS^te C.LW.y ibeMTiFY^ ITSELF |F The cTaDGS' hAAOB A ■

1. why was I The puuntffs Complaint qurifs® m Assbohg mouy bEF^CTVB CLAIMS ON 0iMgJ> CMM AnS AtoFW BY TTfE b/sltficT Court T im®. iF rr cwub BE bmWM^eb T< TH£R£ WAS hWGuuW/ im

2. IF TftE cases. RUNG NuiMBf/ was hteTMiZED ANb MW® 'For An alt&R eg© Procmping^why bibVr THs District court APPoiN/T A biFFEWNT T\AbG£. T> TME THE Case TTtB?EAF®R MobiFYiMG THE DlSPoSiTioU ? f IF ANY G(?out4^ FoR REMEF APPeA^D WlM on THE MSRiTs WHY WM ithe PiMWifFis Basis THS claim bssiWAB® w a eF PieoMBAMNG WHAT Go^aU^ Mfl> CoULbfTT BE RiSGA'RbEb °F-THE LAW AnD ^DLl PF L^W ? 5 IF ExH-AUSHohi ^>F RSIAEWS WAS N6T A^ilABLE WHY Am I WH PLAiimfF WUM WAS WT buRJNfc IWfe LOU^P wr — — < iD^mW h-we PLAiimFFAs'WBe^OAwr U why w ths District Tudge idbnt‘^7 -EskrF UiJF FAiL0>To TbsWY ^ELlfcr n<©^a iwl puRtM6 ^iNAL Tvb&E? • oP£RATIC?^ TW&TubG&M0« •(■.. “"wEMORANbuM Pertain he-To the JobCMEhn^y o* those matters go ONAMHtMSb Pa AaJti ^aFFE^lHS-TRfiMASfe on; S1F THE AVTeft .T X dSaX^dT® BE wttfetftWS Rs* &ROUP '*