Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Willis v. Department of Transportation, 08-1054 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-1054 Visitors: 9
Filed: Nov. 18, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1054 DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and JONES COUNTY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; LYNDO TIPPETT; CAM MCRAE, as public official; JAY CONVERSE, as private individuals and/or their successors; TANDS INCORPORATION, as private individuals and/or their successors, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of No
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1054 DANIEL JOHNSON WILLIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and JONES COUNTY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; LYNDO TIPPETT; CAM MCRAE, as public official; JAY CONVERSE, as private individuals and/or their successors; TANDS INCORPORATION, as private individuals and/or their successors, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (4:07-cv-00046-FL) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 18, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Johnson Willis, Appellant Pro Se. Scott A. Conklin, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Nicole A. Crawford, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Daniel Johnson Willis appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil action. We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Willis v. Dep’t of Transp., No. 4:07-cv-00046-FL (E.D.N.C. Dec. 12, 2007). 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 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