Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Armstrong v. Marks, 01-1195 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1195 Visitors: 26
Filed: Jul. 09, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1195 ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BENJAMIN S. MARKS, JR.; H. TERRY HUTCHENS; CONNIE INVERSTINE; UC LENDING CORPORATION; BRENDA FLINCLUM, Defendants - Appellees. No. 01-1316 ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER WATSON; OFFICER COOK; CHRISTINE DUFFANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1195 ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BENJAMIN S. MARKS, JR.; H. TERRY HUTCHENS; CONNIE INVERSTINE; UC LENDING CORPORATION; BRENDA FLINCLUM, Defendants - Appellees. No. 01-1316 ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER WATSON; OFFICER COOK; CHRISTINE DUFFANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., and William L. Osteen, District Judges. (MISC-00-45-1, CA-97-1335-1) Submitted: June 8, 2001 Decided: July 9, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur O. Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Thompson Wright, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Arthur O. Armstrong appeals district court orders denying leave to reopen cases. In No. 01- 1195, this Court entered an order on June 4, 2001, sanctioning Armstrong and noting that the appeal was frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and deny the motion for summary judgment. In No. 01-1316, we dismiss the appeal and deny the motions for summary judgment, for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and to add an additional party. 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. DISMISSED 2
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