Filed: Sep. 06, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1860 ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BENJAMIN S. MARKS, JR.; H. TERRY HUTCHENS; CONNIE INVERSTINE; UC LENDING CORPORATION; BRENDA FLINCLUM, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (MISC-00-45-1) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 6, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1860 ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BENJAMIN S. MARKS, JR.; H. TERRY HUTCHENS; CONNIE INVERSTINE; UC LENDING CORPORATION; BRENDA FLINCLUM, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (MISC-00-45-1) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 6, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1860 ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BENJAMIN S. MARKS, JR.; H. TERRY HUTCHENS; CONNIE INVERSTINE; UC LENDING CORPORATION; BRENDA FLINCLUM, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (MISC-00-45-1) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 6, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur O. Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Arthur O. Armstrong appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for leave to file a complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Armstrong v. Marks, No. MISC-00-45-1 (M.D.N.C. June 12, 2000). 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. AFFIRMED 2
