Case Name: In re Arthur O. ARMSTRONG, Petitioner-Appellant. Arthur O. Armstrong, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William L. Osteen, Defendant-Appellee; Arthur O. Armstrong, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UC Lending Corporation, Defendant-Appellee; Arthur O. Armstrong, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John Doe, Defendant-Appellee; Arthur O. Armstrong, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Koury Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and Holiday Inn, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-09-20
Citations: 20 F. App'x 132
Docket Number: Nos. 01-1474, 01-1475, 01-1476, 01-1501, 01-1610
Parties: In re Arthur O. ARMSTRONG, Petitioner-Appellant. Arthur O. Armstrong, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William L. Osteen, Defendant-Appellee. Arthur O. Armstrong, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UC Lending Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Arthur O. Armstrong, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John Doe, Defendant-Appellee. Arthur O. Armstrong, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Koury Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and Holiday Inn, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 20
Pages: 132–133

Head Matter:
In re Arthur O. ARMSTRONG, Petitioner-Appellant. Arthur O. Armstrong, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William L. Osteen, Defendant-Appellee. Arthur O. Armstrong, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UC Lending Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Arthur O. Armstrong, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John Doe, Defendant-Appellee. Arthur O. Armstrong, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Koury Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and Holiday Inn, Defendant.
Nos. 01-1474, 01-1475, 01-1476, 01-1501, 01-1610.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 6, 2001.
Decided Sept. 20, 2001.
Arthur O. Armstrong, pro se. Jonathan A. Berkelhammer, Smith, Helms, Mulliss & Moore, L.L.P., Greensboro, NC, for appellee.
Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Arthur O. Armstrong has filed notices of appeals in several district court actions. We have reviewed the records, the relevant district court orders and find the appeals frivolous. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals as frivolous. We further deny Armstrong's motions for summary judgment. 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.
DISMISSED.