Timothy Larrimore v. Odell Williamson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
TIMOTHY BRYAN LARRIMORE, Plaintiff -Appellant, v. ODELL WILLIAMSON; TED PARKER; DECAROL WILLIAMSON, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:08-cv-00008-D)
July 18, 2008
August 5, 2008
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy Bryan Larrimore, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Timothy Larrimore appeals from the district court's order dismissing, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000), his civil action against Odell Williamson and others in which Larrimore sought to confiscate all of the Defendants' possessions based on an allegation of wrongdoing by the Defendants. He also appeals from
the district court's order imposing sanctions and a prefiling injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible Accordingly, we
error as to the order dismissing the complaint.
affirm in part for the reasons stated by the district court. Larrimore v. Williamson, No. 7:08-cv-00008-D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 4 & 5, 2008). We review the imposition of a prefiling injunction for abuse of discretion. Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d Federal courts may issue prefiling conduct hinders the court from
812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004). injunctions when vexatious
fulfilling its constitutional duty. Id.; Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1073-74 (11th Cir. 1986) (en banc). Before enjoining
the filing of further actions, however, the district court must afford the litigant notice and an opportunity to be heard. Cromer, 390 F.3d at 819; In re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443, 446 (3d Cir. 1982). Here, the district court sua sponte issued the injunction. Because the court imposed the injunction without affording Larrimore an
opportunity to be heard, we vacate the order and remand for further proceedings. Accordingly, while we affirm the order dismissing the civil action, we vacate and remand for further proceedings the order imposing sanctions and a prefiling injunction. 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 IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?