Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06521/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06521-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Errick L. Bowe

Maurice Hartgrove

Michael Holliday

Anthony Leon Hoover

James K. Hoyle Bey

Samuel Junior Jackson

North Carolina Department of Public Safety
Appellee
Napoleon J. Rankin Bey
Appellant
State of North Carolina
Appellee
James Lee Troxler

Webster Waller

Terrence Leroy Wright

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6521

NAPOLEON J. RANKIN BEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

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

LEROY WRIGHT, EL; MAURICE HARTGROVE, as Moorish American 

Nationals; JAMES K. HOYLE BEY; SAMUEL JUNIOR JACKSON; JAMES 

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

Waller Bey; MICHAEL HOLLIDAY,

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: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 30, 2015

Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 15-6521 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/30/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Napoleon J. Rankin Bey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6521 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/30/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Napoleon J. Rankin Bey appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) 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: 15-6521 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/30/2015 Pg: 3 of 3