Holmes v. Marshall

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 7, 2009
• Docket: 09-1101
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1101

EUGENE T. HOLMES,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

ELAINE F. MARSHALL, NC Secretary of State; DEREK G. WILES; WAYNE GROOMS; JW BIUE; CHARLES JONES; ALEC CHAPLIN, JR.; LISA F. BYERLY; LOCK BELL; MICHAEL NEESE, Asst. District Attorney; SHERRY H. TINDELL; MANICA STEWARD; TOM HORNER, Clerk of Superior Court; CARL SPARDLEY; LARRY BROWN; MICHAEL LANDS; RAYMOND HAMRICK; JUDGE FAUST; JASON THOMAS WALL; ANNIE FOSTER; DAVID TEDDY; K. DEAN BLACK; FNU SIMS; RICHARD ABERNETHY; WILLIAM A. ANTHONY; NAVY BLACK NORELLE; DANE C. MASTIN; GLENN E. ANDERSON, SR.; MIKE BUTLER; MARVIN PROCTOR; REID JAMES; KEVIN BRACKETT; BRUCE BRYANT; ROBERT HUDGINS; DON BRIDGES; DAVID B. SAMPLE; DONALD RICE; MEREDITH A. SHUFORD; MEGAN FONTANA; WOODROW P. BURGRESS; ANGELIA HOVIE; ANDY D. CROMER ANDERSON; MITCHELL L. MCLEAN, Clerk of Superior Court; JEFFREY RAY SMITH; CHARLES WOMACK; JESSE B. CALDWELL, III; RALPH C. GINGLES; RALPH GURGAINUS; JAMES B. PASLAY; DAVID STEWARD; SANDA ROBERT; PINKY REESE; TIMOTHY L. PATTI; JASON P. GREEN, Chief of Police; MAJOR LEPHARD; ALAN CLONINGER, Sheriff,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:08-cv-00600-MR-CH)

Submitted: September 24, 2009 Decided: October 7, 2009 Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eugene T. Holmes, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Eugene T. Holmes appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint as frivolous,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (2006). We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Holmes v. Marshall, No. 3:08-cv-00600-MR-CH (W.D.N.C. Jan 14,

2009). 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