Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Holmes v. Marshall, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Eugene Holmes' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. The district court had dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal for the reasons stated in Holmes v. Marshall, No. 3:08-cv-00600-MR-CH (W.D.N.C. Jan 14, 2009).

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2009-10-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-1101

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Eugene Holmes' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. The district court had dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal for the reasons stated in Holmes v. Marshall, No. 3:08-cv-00600-MR-CH (W.D.N.C. Jan 14, 2009).

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    7 views3 pages

    Holmes v. Marshall, 4th Cir. (2009)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Eugene Holmes' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. The district court had dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error in the district court's decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal for the reasons stated in Holmes v. Marshall, No. 3:08-cv-00600-MR-CH (W.D.N.C. Jan 14, 2009).

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 09-1101

    EUGENE T. HOLMES,
    Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    ELAINE F. MARSHALL, NC Secretary of State; DEREK G. WILES;
    WAYNE GROOMS; JW BIUE; CHARLES JONES; ALEC CHAPLIN, JR.;
    LISA F. BYERLY; LOCK BELL; MICHAEL NEESE, Asst. District
    Attorney; SHERRY H. TINDELL; MANICA STEWARD; TOM HORNER,
    Clerk of Superior Court; CARL SPARDLEY; LARRY BROWN;
    MICHAEL LANDS; RAYMOND HAMRICK; JUDGE FAUST; JASON THOMAS
    WALL; ANNIE FOSTER; DAVID TEDDY; K. DEAN BLACK; FNU SIMS;
    RICHARD ABERNETHY; WILLIAM A. ANTHONY; NAVY BLACK NORELLE;
    DANE C. MASTIN; GLENN E. ANDERSON, SR.; MIKE BUTLER; MARVIN
    PROCTOR; REID JAMES; KEVIN BRACKETT; BRUCE BRYANT; ROBERT
    HUDGINS; DON BRIDGES; DAVID B. SAMPLE; DONALD RICE;
    MEREDITH A. SHUFORD; MEGAN FONTANA; WOODROW P. BURGRESS;
    ANGELIA HOVIE; ANDY D. CROMER ANDERSON; MITCHELL L. MCLEAN,
    Clerk of Superior Court; JEFFREY RAY SMITH; CHARLES WOMACK;
    JESSE B. CALDWELL, III; RALPH C. GINGLES; RALPH GURGAINUS;
    JAMES B. PASLAY; DAVID STEWARD; SANDA ROBERT; PINKY REESE;
    TIMOTHY L. PATTI; JASON P. GREEN, Chief of Police; MAJOR
    LEPHARD; ALAN CLONINGER, Sheriff,
    Defendants Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger,
    District Judge. (3:08-cv-00600-MR-CH)

    Submitted:

    September 24, 2009

    Decided:

    October 7, 2009

    Before WILKINSON and


    Senior Circuit Judge.

    GREGORY,

    Circuit

    Judges,

    and

    HAMILTON,

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Eugene T. Holmes, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Eugene T. Holmes appeals the district courts order
    dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2006) complaint as frivolous,
    pursuant

    to

    28

    U.S.C.

    1915(e)(2)(B)(i)

    (2006).

    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.


    we

    affirm

    Holmes v.
    2009).
    legal
    before

    for

    the

    Marshall,

    reasons
    No.

    stated

    by

    the

    3:08-cv-00600-MR-CH

    We

    have

    Accordingly,

    district

    (W.D.N.C.

    court.
    Jan

    14,

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and


    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like