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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-6521 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/30/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6521 NAPOLEON J. RANKIN BEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, and ANTHONY LEON HOOVER, a/k/a Anthony Leon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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 15-6521 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/30/2015 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Napoleon J. Rankin Bey appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42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?