UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
3