Theodore Justice v. Robert Hobgood, Jr.
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999404035-2] Originating case number: 5:13-cv-00677-BR. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999478885]. [14-1539]
Appeal: 14-1539
Doc: 11
Filed: 11/20/2014
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1539
THEODORE JUSTICE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ROBERT H. HOBGOOD, JR., Senior Resident Superior Court
Judge in the Ninth Judicial District, in his individual and
official capacity,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:13-cv-00677-BR)
Submitted:
November 18, 2014
Decided:
November 20, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theodore Justice, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-1539
Doc: 11
Filed: 11/20/2014
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Theodore Justice seeks to appeal the district court’s
order reviewing the magistrate judge’s determination and denying
Justice’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Denial of
in forma pauperis status is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
See
Roberts
(1950).
v.
United
States
Dist.
339
U.S.
844,
on
the
reasoning
of
the
Accordingly, we dismiss the
district
court.
Justice
Hobgood, No. 5:13-cv-00677-BR (E.D.N.C. May 27, 2014).
leave
845
A review of the record indicates that the district
court did not abuse its discretion.
appeal
Ct.,
to
proceed
in
forma
pauperis.
We
dispense
v.
We deny
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.
DISMISSED
2
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?