Armstrong v. Howell
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UNPUBLISHED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
ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
C. GOULD, State Trooper,
Defendant - Appellee. No. 06-1194
ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BRYAN HAGGANS; DEBBIE HAGGANS; ANDREW R. BOYD,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 06-1195
ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
THOMASINE E. MOORE; NINA A. KNIGHT; MARJORIE A. EVANS,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 06-1196
ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF KNIGHTDALE; KNIGHTDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT; DIRECTOR CAPT. PERSON; A. T. JOHNSTON,
Defendants - Appellees.
- 2 - No. 06-1197
ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CITY OF NASHVILLE-ROCKY MOUNT; CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOHN MANLEY; OFFICER STEVE HILL; OFFICER JOHN DOE, I; OFFICER JOHN DOE, II,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 06-1198
ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Chief Executive Stat; MR. WARNER, District Attorney; HOWARD S. BONEY; RACHEL JOYNER; TROOPER NICHOLS; QUENTIN SUMNER,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 06-1270
In Re: ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,
Appellant.
- 3 - No. 06-1271
ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
TROOPER J. CLAYTON,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 06-1272
ARTHUR O. ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CLERK OF WILSON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Civil; W. RUSSELL DUKE, JR., Judge; MILTON F. FITCH, JR., Judge,
Defendants - Appellees.
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Armstrong v. Howell (Armstrong v. Howell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.