Filed: Jan. 05, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 00-3156 _ Charles Armstrong, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern Harrison Family; McQuay Family; * District of Missouri. Vinita Park Police Department; Ku * Klux Klan, Overland, Missouri; Ku * (UNPUBLISHED) Klux Klan, State of Missouri, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: December 22, 2000 Filed: January 5, 2001 _ Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CUR
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 00-3156 _ Charles Armstrong, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern Harrison Family; McQuay Family; * District of Missouri. Vinita Park Police Department; Ku * Klux Klan, Overland, Missouri; Ku * (UNPUBLISHED) Klux Klan, State of Missouri, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: December 22, 2000 Filed: January 5, 2001 _ Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURI..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 00-3156
___________
Charles Armstrong, *
*
Appellant, *
*
v. * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the Eastern
Harrison Family; McQuay Family; * District of Missouri.
Vinita Park Police Department; Ku *
Klux Klan, Overland, Missouri; Ku * (UNPUBLISHED)
Klux Klan, State of Missouri, *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: December 22, 2000
Filed: January 5, 2001
___________
Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit
Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Charles Armstrong appeals the district court’s1 order dismissing his pro se civil
rights complaint against multiple defendants. After careful review of the record, we
1
The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
conclude that Mr. Armstrong’s complaint was frivolous and failed to state a claim. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii); Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic,
506
U.S. 263, 267-68 (1993); Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); West v.
Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,
436 U.S. 658, 691-95
(1978). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-