Case ID: f-appx_542/html/0240-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOHN THE METHODIST as Rev. John Lee Morris, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The State of NORTH CAROLINA; The People of The State of North Carolina; United States of America; The People of The United States of America; County of Durham; Judge Paul V. Niemeyer; Judge Roger L. Gregory; Judge James A. Wynn, Jr.; Judge Barbara Milano Keenan; Judge Andre M. Davis; Jeffrey Atkins; William K. Suter; Ruth Jones; Judge Trevor Sharp; Gill P. Beck; United States Postal Service; Judge William B. Traxler, Jr.; Judge James A. Beaty, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.
    
      No. 13-1685.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 10, 2013.
    Decided: Oct. 16, 2013.
    John Lee Morris, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Kathryn Hicks Shields, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Cheryl Thornton Sloan, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina; Marie Therese Inserra, Durham County Attorney’s Office, Durham, North Carolina; Sara Bugbee Winn, Office of The United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John Lee Morris, Sr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint and imposing a pre-filing injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. John the Methodist v. North Carolina, No. 1:12-cv-01359-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C. May 9, 2013). We grant Morris leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, but deny his motions for summary disposition and to put the Bible back in public schools. 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.

AFFIRMED.