Court Opinion

ID: 1026267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 07:03:37.306849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:20.748848
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 08-1111

RANDY L. THOMAS,

               Plaintiff - Appellant,

          v.

R. HARCOURT FULTON; JAMES HAMMOND,

               Defendants - Appellees.

                            No. 08-1292

RANDY L. THOMAS,

               Plaintiff - Appellant,

          v.

R. HARCOURT FULTON; JAMES HAMMOND,

               Defendants - Appellees.

                            No. 08-1325

RANDY L. THOMAS,

               Plaintiff - Appellant,

          v.
R. HARCOURT FULTON; JAMES HAMMOND,

                Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
District Judge. (3:07-cv-00200-GCM)

Submitted:   June 26, 2008                Decided:   July 22, 2008

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randy L. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Sardar Mujeeb Shah-Khan, CITY
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Charlotte, North Carolina; Mark Weston Johnson,
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                               - 2 -
PER CURIAM:

          In these consolidated appeals, Randy L. Thomas appeals

the district court’s orders entered in his action filed pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), which (1) granted the motions to dismiss

filed by R. Harcourt Fulton and James Hammond (No. 08-1111);

(2) denied Thomas’ motions filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)

(No. 08-1292); and (3) reimposed a prefiling injunction on remand

(No. 08-1325).    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error.   Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court.   Thomas v. Fulton, No. 3:07-cv-00200-GCM (W.D.N.C.

Dec. 11, 2007; Feb. 4, 2008; Feb. 13, 2008).   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

                                - 3 -