Armstrong v. Woodard et al
| Arthur O. Armstrong |
| Calvin Woodard, Clads E. Ownes, Robert Evans, Roland Loftin, Milton F. Fitch, Jr., Cynthia Thornton and Thomas E. Asbell, II |
| 5:2012cv00805 |
| December 17, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Western Division Office |
| WILSON |
| James C. Fox |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
34
ORDER - Plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal is untimely, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(l) and (5), and he has not made the requisite demonstration to reopen the time to appeal, see Fed. R. App. 4(a)(6). Accordingly, his motion for leave to appeal is DENIED. Additionally, under the terms of this Court's prefiling injunction [DE 26, 12(g)], plaintiff is not permitted to file either the motion for relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) or the proposed complaint. Any relief he seeks in those documents is DENIED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to return the check to plaintiff. The Clerk is further DIRECTED not to accept any further filings in this case, in accordance with the prefiling injunction [DE 26]. Finally, the Court finds that an appeal from this order would be without merit [DE 26]. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 7/13/2022. Copy sent via US Mail to Arthur O. Armstrong, 8113 Pleasant Hill Road, Elm City, NC 27822. (Stouch, L.)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
