Armstrong v. Bateman
Armstrong v. Bateman
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1210
ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus
R. G. BATEMAN; J. B. ANTONELLI; NORTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees.
No. 01-1218
ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG, Petitioner - Appellant, versus
R. G. BATEMAN; J. B. ANTONELLI, Respondents - Appellees.
No. 01-1219
ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG, Petitioner - Appellant, versus
R. G. BATEMAN; ANTONELLI, et al, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (MISC-00-64-1, MISC-00-94-1, MISC-00-95-1)
Submitted: May 3, 2001 Decided: May 17, 2001
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arthur O. Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se. Staci Tolliver Meyer, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 dismissing his motions for leave to file lawsuits. We have reviewed the record and the district court orders and find no error. Accordingly, we deny Armstrong’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals as frivolous. We further deny Armstrong’s motion for summary judgment filed in No. 01-1210. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.