Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Duane Montgomery v. United States, 16-6484 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-6484 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jul. 22, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6484 DUANE MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WAYNE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FEDERAL DEFENDER’S OFFICE; U.S. DISTRICT COURT, MI; STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III; CRAIG A. WEIER; S. PIERSON, Lieutenant; SPECIAL AGENT DONALDSON; SPECIAL AGENT ALLEN; AGENT TERRY; W. MALATINSKY, Clinical Director; CHAIRMAN; MEMBER; U.S. M
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6484 DUANE MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WAYNE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FEDERAL DEFENDER’S OFFICE; U.S. DISTRICT COURT, MI; STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III; CRAIG A. WEIER; S. PIERSON, Lieutenant; SPECIAL AGENT DONALDSON; SPECIAL AGENT ALLEN; AGENT TERRY; W. MALATINSKY, Clinical Director; CHAIRMAN; MEMBER; U.S. MARSHAL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:14-ct-03279-H) Submitted: July 21, 2016 Decided: July 22, 2016 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Duane Montgomery, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Duane Montgomery appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil action, denying his motions for entry of default and default judgment, and denying his motion to alter or amend judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Montgomery v. United States, No. 5:14-ct-03279-H (E.D.N.C. Mar. 7, & Mar. 31, 2016). We deny Montgomery’s motions for transcript at government expense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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