Armstrong v. Jones et al
Filing
25
JUDGMENT: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the court DISMISSES the action as repetitious and frivolous, DENIES AS MOOT the pending motions [D.E. 7, 21], and DENIES Armstrong's "motion for request of $2,450.00 pursuant to pre-f iling of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" [D.E. 23]. In accordance with the superseding permanent injunction, the court determines that an appeal of this order would be frivolous. The clerk shall close the case. Signed by Julie Richards Johnston, Clerk of Court on 7/18/2016. (Briggeman, N.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff,
V.
NORTH CAROLINA, ROY COOPER,
MICHAEL P. DAVIDSON, B.K. JONES,
J. E. MOORE, BATTS, BATTS & BELL, L.L.P.,
MICHAEL R. SMITH, NASH COUNTY,
SUMNER T. SUMNER, ALMA L. HINTON,
ROBERT, A. EVANS, CLARE MEDDLE,
W. L. EVERETT, JR., E.M. McCAULEY,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
CASE NO. 5:15-CV-602-D
Decision by Court.
This action came before this Court for ruling as follows.
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the court DISMISSES the action as
repetitious and frivolous, DENIES AS MOOT the pending motions [D.E. 7, 21], and DENIES
Armstrong's "motion for request of $2,450.00 pursuant to pre-filing of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure" [D.E. 23]. In accordance with the superseding permanent injunction, the court determines
that an appeal of this order would be frivolous. The clerk shall close the case.
This Judgment Filed and Entered on July 18, 2016, and Copies To:
Arthur Orlandus Armstrong
8113 Pleasant Hill Road, Elm City, NC
27822 via US Mail
Tammera Sudderth Hill
(via CM/ECF Notice of Electronic Filing)
Kathryn H. Shields
(via CM/ECF Notice of Electronic Filing)
Michael R. Smith, Jr.
(via CM/ECF Notice of Electronic Filing)
DATE:
July 18, 2016
JULIE RICHARDS JOHNSTON, CLERK
(By) /s/ Nicole Briggeman
Deputy Clerk
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?