Filed: Aug. 31, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1455 JOHN D. HORTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES ANTHONY MARTIN; MATTHEW COAKLEY; WILLIAM WEBB, Honorable; ANNE HAYES; MALCOLM J. HOWARD, Honorable; GEOFFREY HOSFORD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-04-976) Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: August 31, 2005 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Ci
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1455 JOHN D. HORTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES ANTHONY MARTIN; MATTHEW COAKLEY; WILLIAM WEBB, Honorable; ANNE HAYES; MALCOLM J. HOWARD, Honorable; GEOFFREY HOSFORD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-04-976) Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: August 31, 2005 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Cir..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1455 JOHN D. HORTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES ANTHONY MARTIN; MATTHEW COAKLEY; WILLIAM WEBB, Honorable; ANNE HAYES; MALCOLM J. HOWARD, Honorable; GEOFFREY HOSFORD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-04-976) Submitted: August 25, 2005 Decided: August 31, 2005 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John D. Horton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John D. Horton appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action. We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. See Horton v. Martin, No. CA-04-976 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 25, 2005). 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 -
