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.)

Download PDF
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?