Filed: Aug. 04, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1783 JOHN LEE MORRIS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS; NC SUPREME COURT; MIKE JONES; THE BUDD GROUP; JAN TAYLOR; EISAI PHARMACEUTICAL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-213-1) Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 4, 2004 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1783 JOHN LEE MORRIS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS; NC SUPREME COURT; MIKE JONES; THE BUDD GROUP; JAN TAYLOR; EISAI PHARMACEUTICAL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-213-1) Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 4, 2004 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN,..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1783 JOHN LEE MORRIS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS; NC SUPREME COURT; MIKE JONES; THE BUDD GROUP; JAN TAYLOR; EISAI PHARMACEUTICAL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-213-1) Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 4, 2004 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Lee Morris, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Lee Morris, Sr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil complaint as frivolous. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Morris v. North Carolina Ct. of Appeals, No. CA-04-213-1 (M.D.N.C. May 28, 2004). We further deny Morris’ motion for preparation of a transcript at government expense. 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 -