Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Armstrong v. Bateman, 01-1210 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1210 Visitors: 56
Filed: May 17, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1210 ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. G. BATEMAN; J. B. ANTONELLI; NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. No. 01-1218 ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG, Petitioner - Appellant, versus R. G. BATEMAN; J. B. ANTONELLI, Respondents - Appellees. No. 01-1219 ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG, Petitioner - Appellant, versus R. G. BATEMAN; ANTONELLI, et al, Respondents - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1210 ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus R. G. BATEMAN; J. B. ANTONELLI; NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees. No. 01-1218 ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG, Petitioner - Appellant, versus R. G. BATEMAN; J. B. ANTONELLI, Respondents - Appellees. No. 01-1219 ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG, Petitioner - Appellant, versus R. G. BATEMAN; ANTONELLI, et al, Respondents - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (MISC-00-64-1, MISC-00-94-1, MISC-00-95-1) Submitted: May 3, 2001 Decided: May 17, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur O. Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se. Staci Tolliver Meyer, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Arthur O. Armstrong appeals district court orders dismissing his motions for leave to file lawsuits. We have reviewed the record and the district court orders and find no error. Accordingly, we deny Armstrong’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals as frivolous. We further deny Armstrong’s motion for summary judgment filed in No. 01-1210. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer