Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06337/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06337-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Bryan Larrimore
Appellant
Ted Parker
Appellee
Decarol Williamson
Appellee
Odell Williamson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6337

TIMOTHY BRYAN LARRIMORE,

Plaintiff -Appellant,

v.

ODELL WILLIAMSON; TED PARKER; DECAROL WILLIAMSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III,

District Judge. (7:08-cv-00008-D)

Submitted: July 18, 2008 Decided: August 5, 2008

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

Timothy Bryan Larrimore, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-6337 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/05/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
-2-

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Larrimore appeals from the district court’s order

dismissing, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000), his civil

action against Odell Williamson and others in which Larrimore

sought to confiscate all of the Defendants’ possessions based on an

allegation of wrongdoing by the Defendants. He also appeals from

the district court’s order imposing sanctions and a prefiling

injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error as to the order dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, we

affirm in part for the reasons stated by the district court.

Larrimore v. Williamson, No. 7:08-cv-00008-D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 4 & 5,

2008).

We review the imposition of a prefiling injunction for

abuse of discretion. Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d

812, 817 (4th Cir. 2004). Federal courts may issue prefiling

injunctions when vexatious conduct hinders the court from

fulfilling its constitutional duty. Id.; Procup v. Strickland, 792

F.2d 1069, 1073-74 (11th Cir. 1986) (en banc). Before enjoining

the filing of further actions, however, the district court must

afford the litigant notice and an opportunity to be heard. Cromer,

390 F.3d at 819; In re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443, 446 (3d Cir. 1982).

Here, the district court sua sponte issued the injunction. Because

the court imposed the injunction without affording Larrimore an

Appeal: 08-6337 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/05/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
-3-

opportunity to be heard, we vacate the order and remand for further

proceedings.

Accordingly, while we affirm the order dismissing the

civil action, we vacate and remand for further proceedings the

order imposing sanctions and a prefiling injunction. 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 IN PART;

VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART

Appeal: 08-6337 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/05/2008 Pg: 3 of 3