Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Langdon v. Garner, 03-1649 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-1649 Visitors: 14
Filed: Feb. 10, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1649 CHRISTOPHER LANGDON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ED GARNER, JR.; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; ROY COOPER; T. L. MALONEE; PHILLIP JACKSON; BERNADINE BALLANCE; NORTH CAROLINA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-746-5-BO; CA-01-816-5-BO; CA-01-906-5-BO) Submitted: De
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1649 CHRISTOPHER LANGDON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ED GARNER, JR.; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; ROY COOPER; T. L. MALONEE; PHILLIP JACKSON; BERNADINE BALLANCE; NORTH CAROLINA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-746-5-BO; CA-01-816-5-BO; CA-01-906-5-BO) Submitted: December 29, 2003 Decided: February 10, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Langdon, Appellant Pro Se. Adrian Phillips, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Robert Orr Crawford, III, Lisa Carol Glover, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Christopher Langdon appeals from the district court’s order imposing a prefiling injunction. Our review of the record discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Langdon v. Garner, Nos. CA-01-746-5-BO, CA-01-816-5-BO, CA-01-906-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Apr. 17, 2003). We grant Langdon’s motion to amend his informal brief, deny his motion for stay pending appeal, deny Langdon’s motions for an extension to file a response, for appointment of counsel and 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 -
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