Court Opinion

ID: 9961896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-20 21:00:41.37162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:18.477766
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2187      Doc: 8         Filed: 04/19/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-2187

        JON’TA HAMPTON-BEY,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        BLOWING ROCK POLICE DEPARTMENT; JONATHAN HAYES,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:23-cv-00028-KDB-SCR)

        Submitted: April 18, 2024                                           Decided: April 19, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jon’ta Hampton-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-2187      Doc: 8         Filed: 04/19/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jon’ta Hampton-Bey appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment

        to the defendants in Hampton-Bey’s civil rights action. Liberally construing Hampton-

        Bey’s arguments, he contends that the district court lacked authority over him because he

        is Moorish American. This contention is patently frivolous. See Bey v. Indiana, 847 F.3d

        559, 561 (7th Cir. 2017) (rejecting as baseless claim “that as a result of eighteenth-century

        treaties the United States has no jurisdiction over its Moorish inhabitants”). Accordingly,

        we affirm. Hampton-Bey v. Blowing Rock Police Dep’t, No. 5:23-cv-00028-KDB-SCR

        (W.D.N.C. Nov. 6, 2023). 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

                                                     2