Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Armstrong v. Koury Corporation, 01-1294 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-1294 Visitors: 30
Filed: Aug. 08, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1294 ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KOURY CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. No. 01-1574 ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KOURY CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-97-1028-1) Submitted: July 24, 2001 Decided: August 8, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, an
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1294 ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KOURY CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. No. 01-1574 ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KOURY CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-97-1028-1) Submitted: July 24, 2001 Decided: August 8, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur O. Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan A. Berkelhammer, Laura Deddish Burton, SMITH, HELMS, MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Arthur O. Armstrong appeals district court orders amending an injunction and denying his motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. We have reviewed the record and the district court orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for summary judgment and dismiss the appeals as frivolous. 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
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