Duane Montgomery v. United States of America

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motions for transcript at government expense [999796355-2], [999797457-2], [999801727-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999796669-2]. Originating case number: 5:14-ct-03279-H. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999894553]. Mailed to: Appellant. [16-6484]

Appeal: 16-6484

Doc: 21

Filed: 07/22/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6484

DUANE MONTGOMERY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
UNITED
STATES
OF
AMERICA;
WAYNE
COUNTY
SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FEDERAL DEFENDER’S
OFFICE; U.S. DISTRICT COURT, MI; STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III;
CRAIG A. WEIER; S. PIERSON, Lieutenant; SPECIAL AGENT
DONALDSON; SPECIAL AGENT ALLEN; AGENT TERRY; W. MALATINSKY,
Clinical Director; CHAIRMAN; MEMBER; U.S. MARSHAL,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:14-ct-03279-H)

Submitted:

July 21, 2016

Decided:

July 22, 2016

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Duane Montgomery, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6484

Doc: 21

Filed: 07/22/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Duane

Montgomery

appeals

the

district

court’s

orders

dismissing his civil action, denying his motions for entry of
default and default judgment, and denying his motion to alter or
amend

judgment.

We

reversible error.

have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in

forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

Montgomery

v.

(E.D.N.C.

Mar.

Mar.

7,

&

United
31,

States,
2016).

No.
We

5:14-ct-03279-H

deny

Montgomery’s

motions for transcript at government expense.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

materials

legal
before

this

court

are
and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2