Napoleon Rankin Bey v. State of North Carolina
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-ct-03220-F Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999611829].. [15-6521]
Appeal: 15-6521
Doc: 9
Filed: 06/30/2015
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6521
NAPOLEON J. RANKIN BEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
ANTHONY LEON HOOVER, a/k/a Anthony Leon Hoover El; TERRENCE
LEROY WRIGHT, EL; MAURICE HARTGROVE, as Moorish American
Nationals; JAMES K. HOYLE BEY; SAMUEL JUNIOR JACKSON; JAMES
LEE TROXLER, EL; ERRICK L. BOWE; WEBSTER WALLER, a/k/a Webster
Waller Bey; MICHAEL HOLLIDAY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Sub Jurisdiction Counties; NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:14-ct-03220-F)
Submitted:
June 25, 2015
Decided:
Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
June 30, 2015
Appeal: 15-6521
Doc: 9
Filed: 06/30/2015
Pg: 2 of 3
Napoleon J. Rankin Bey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 15-6521
Doc: 9
Filed: 06/30/2015
Pg: 3 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Napoleon J. Rankin Bey appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012).
We have reviewed the record and find that
this appeal is frivolous.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for
the reasons stated by the district court.
Carolina,
No.
5:14-ct-03220-F
(E.D.N.C.
Mar.
Jackson v. North
26,
2015).
We
dispense 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
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?