Case Name: Steven Glenn JOHNSON, a/k/a Steven Glenn: Johnson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant-Appellee, and United States of America; Federal Reserve, And all those similarly situated, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-22
Citations: 668 F. App'x 45
Docket Number: No. 16-1538
Parties: Steven Glenn JOHNSON, a/k/a Steven Glenn: Johnson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant-Appellee, and United States of America; Federal Reserve, And all those similarly situated, Defendants.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 45–46

Head Matter:
Steven Glenn JOHNSON, a/k/a Steven Glenn: Johnson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant-Appellee, and United States of America; Federal Reserve, And all those similarly situated, Defendants.
No. 16-1538
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 18, 2016
Decided: August 22, 2016
Steven Glenn Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Olga Eugenia Vysotskaya de Brito, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Glenn Johnson appeals the district court's orders granting North Carolina's motion to set aside entry of default judgment and denying Johnson's ancillary motions; denying Johnson's motion to alter or amend that judgment and his companion motion; directing Johnson to file proof of service upon North Carolina by a certain date; dismissing Johnson's complaint without prejudice for failure to timely serve process; and denying Johnson's motion to alter or amend that judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the district court's rulings in the disputed orders. 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.
AFFIRMED