Filed: Jun. 25, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6588 GEORGE PAUL LAROQUE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. THEODIS BECK; JAMES E. LANGSTON; THEODORE WALKER; HEIDI GALETSCHRY, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:09-ct-03025-H) Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 25, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpubli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6588 GEORGE PAUL LAROQUE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. THEODIS BECK; JAMES E. LANGSTON; THEODORE WALKER; HEIDI GALETSCHRY, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:09-ct-03025-H) Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 25, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublis..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6588 GEORGE PAUL LAROQUE, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. THEODIS BECK; JAMES E. LANGSTON; THEODORE WALKER; HEIDI GALETSCHRY, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:09-ct-03025-H) Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 25, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Paul LaRoque, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: George Paul LaRoque appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). 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. LaRoque v. Beck, No. 5:09-ct-03025-H (E.D.N.C. Mar. 3, 2009). 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
