Eugene Holmes v. Elaine Marshall
Filing
920091007
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM: Eugene T. Holmes appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (2006). We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. we affirm for the reasons stated by the
Accordingly, court. Jan 14,
district
Holmes v. 2009). legal before
Marshall,
No. 3:08-cv-00600-MR-CH
(W.D.N.C.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional
would
process. AFFIRMED
3
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?