Court Opinion

ID: 995271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 00:35:03.241785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:52.912154
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

DWAYNE J. BOOTHE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

RICHARD R. RIDDLE, Director;
MURIEL K. OFFERMAN, Secretary;
                                                               No. 97-7753
CHRISTY B. HICKS, Enforcement
Officer and any or other unknown
parties in their official and
individual capacity, et al,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge.
(CA-97-746-5-BO)

Submitted: May 19, 1998

Decided: June 19, 1998

Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and
HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Dwayne J. Boothe, Appellant Pro Se.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Dwayne Boothe appeals the district court's order dismissing his
action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994), as frivolous. Boothe
alleges that the Defendants failed to provide him adequate notice prior
to seizing his personal property to satisfy unpaid taxes levied under
North Carolina's Controlled Substance Tax ("Drug Tax"), N.C. Gen.
Stat. §§ 105-113.105 through 105-113.113 (1997), in violation of his
due process rights. This court recently held that the enforcement of
North Carolina's Drug Tax must conform to the constitutional safe-
guards that accompany criminal proceedings. See Lynn v. West, 134
F.3d 582, 593 (4th Cir. 1998). Hence, due process now requires that
those subject to Drug Tax enforcement proceedings receive adequate
notice of the proceedings. We recognize that the district court did not
have the benefit of this court's decision in Lynn when deciding this
case, and thus we vacate the district court's order dismissing Boothe's
claim as frivolous and remand for the district court to reconsider
Boothe's claim in light of Lynn.

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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

                    2