Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06492/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06492-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Errick L. Bowe

Maurice Hartgrove

Michael Holliday

Anthony Leon Hoover
Appellant
James K. Hoyle Bey

Samuel Junior Jackson

North Carolina Department of Public Safety
Appellee
Napoleon J. Rankin Bey

State of North Carolina
Appellee
James Lee Troxler

Webster Waller

Terrence Leroy Wright
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6492

ANTHONY LEON HOOVER, a/k/a Anthony Leon Hoover El; TERRENCE 

LEROY WRIGHT EL, as Moorish American Nationals,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

and

SAMUEL JUNIOR JACKSON; NAPOLEON J. RANKIN BEY; JAMES LEE 

TROXLER EL; ERRICK L. BOWE; WEBSTER WALLER, a/k/a Webster 

Waller Bey; MICHAEL HOLLIDAY; JAMES K. HOYLE BEY; MAURICE 

HARTGROVE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Sub Jurisdiction Counties; NORTH 

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (5:14-ct-03220-F)

Submitted: September 9, 2015 Decided: September 11, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 15-6492 Doc: 21 Filed: 09/11/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Anthony Leon Hoover; Terrence Leroy Wright, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6492 Doc: 21 Filed: 09/11/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Leon Hoover and Terrence Leroy Wright El appeal the 

district court’s order dismissing their complaint under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record and 

find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Jackson v. 

North Carolina, No. 5:14-ct-03220-F (E.D.N.C. Mar. 26, 2015). 

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.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6492 Doc: 21 Filed: 09/11/2015 Pg: 3 of 3