Case ID: f-appx_196/html/0155-02.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

George Randolph SUTTON, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Rick FARFORD, Goldsboro Sheriff Officer Detective; George Rachel, Sheriff Department Supervisor, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 05-7260.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 24, 2006.
    Decided: Aug. 28, 2006.
    
      George Randolph Sutton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

George Randolph Sutton, Jr. appeals the district court’s order denying his motions to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint, for an answer to his amended complaint, and to compel an answer following the district court’s dismissal of his initial complaint as frivolous. We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion or reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sutton v. Farford, No. CA-04-900-5 (E.D.N.C. filed July 18, 2006; entered July 22, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       To the extent Sutton seeks to appeal the district court’s prior order dismissing his complaint as frivolous, we are without jurisdiction to consider his arguments because his notice of appeal was untimely as to that order.