Case ID: f-appx_3/html/0103-02.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

Arthur O. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John DOE, Defendant-Appellee. Arthur O. Armstrong, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John Doe, Defendant-Appellee.
    Nos. 00-1861, 01-1004.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 8, 2001.
    Decided Feb. 13, 2001.
    Arthur O. Armstrong, pro se.
    Before WILKINS, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Arthur O. Armstrong appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for leave to file a complaint and denying his motions for summary judgment and reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Armstrong v. Doe, No. MISC-00-50-1 (M.D.N.C. June 12 & Dec. 13, 2000). We also deny Armstrong’s motion filed in No. 00-1861 seeking permission to file a motion for relief. 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.