Court Opinion

ID: 1004364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:40:15.76505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:58.117036
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 01-1226

ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,

                                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

WATSON, et al,

                                           Defendants - Appellees.

                            No. 01-1227

ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,

                                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

WATSON, et al,

                                           Defendants - Appellees.

                            No. 01-1233

ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,

                                            Plaintiff - Appellant,
          versus

OFFICER WATSON; OFFICER COOK; CHRISTINE
DUFFANY,

                                          Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., and
William L. Osteen, District Judges. (MISC-01-20-1, MISC-01-21-1,
CA-97-1335-1)

Submitted:   May 3, 2001                   Decided:   May 17, 2001

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur O. Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Thompson Wright,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

                                2
PER CURIAM:

     In these consolidated appeals, Arthur O. Armstrong appeals

district court orders dismissing his motions for leave to reopen an

action.   We have reviewed the record and the district court orders

and find no error.    Accordingly, we deny Armstrong’s motions for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals as friv-

olous.    We further deny Armstrong’s motions for summary judgment.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-

tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                          DISMISSED

                                  3