Armstrong v. Howell

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 20, 2006
• Docket: 06-1191
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1191

ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

J. C. HOWELL,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 06-1192

In Re: ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,

Appellant.

No. 06-1193

C. GOULD, State Trooper,

Defendant - Appellee. No. 06-1194

BRYAN HAGGANS; DEBBIE HAGGANS; ANDREW R. BOYD,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 06-1195

THOMASINE E. MOORE; NINA A. KNIGHT; MARJORIE A. EVANS,

No. 06-1196

CITY OF KNIGHTDALE; KNIGHTDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT; DIRECTOR CAPT. PERSON; A. T. JOHNSTON,

- 2 - No. 06-1197

CITY OF NASHVILLE-ROCKY MOUNT; CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOHN MANLEY; OFFICER STEVE HILL; OFFICER JOHN DOE, I; OFFICER JOHN DOE, II,

No. 06-1198

MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Chief Executive Stat; MR. WARNER, District Attorney; HOWARD S. BONEY; RACHEL JOYNER; TROOPER NICHOLS; QUENTIN SUMNER,

No. 06-1270

- 3 - No. 06-1271

TROOPER J. CLAYTON,

No. 06-1272

CLERK OF WILSON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Civil; W. RUSSELL DUKE, JR., Judge; MILTON F. FITCH, JR., Judge,

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:03-cv-00941-BR; 5:03-mc-00020-BR; 5:04-cv- 00011-BR; 5:05-cv-00086-BR; 5:05-cv-00089-BR; 5:05-cv-00565-BR; 5:05-cv-00778-BR; 5:05-cv-00779-BR; 5:03-mc-00007-BR; 5:04-cv- 00316-BR; 5-05-cv-00136-BR)

Submitted: April 5, 2006 Decided: April 20, 2006

- 4 - Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur O. Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se. Harold Franklin Askins, Assistant Attorney General, Stacey Treva Carter, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

- 5 - PER CURIAM:

Arthur O. Armstrong appeals a district court order

dismissing several pending motions, ordering sanctions and

enjoining Armstrong from moving to reopen cases or reopen cases

against prior defendants or seeking leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, among other actions Armstrong is prevented from doing.

Armstrong is a frequent litigant who abuses the judicial system

through his totally frivolous and barely comprehensible filings.

We have sanctioned him on three occasions. We share the district

court’s frustration with Armstrong and find no abuse of discretion

on the district court’s part. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons cited by the district court. See In re Armstrong, No.

5:03-mc-00020 (E.D.N.C. filed Jan. 18, 2006; entered Jan. 19,

2006). We also deny all of Armstrong’s pending motions requesting

general relief. 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

- 6 -