Categories: Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions

LARRIMORE v. NORTH CAROLINA, 332 Fed.Appx. 5 (4th Cir. 2009)

Timothy Bryan LARRIMORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA; All Judges; All District Attorneys; All Lawyers; All Magistrates; All American Civil Liberties Unions; All State Bars; All Judicial Standards Commissions; All Local Bars; All Federal Court Judges; All Federal Court District Attorneys; All Federal Court Magistrates; All Masonic Lodges; All Sheriff’s; All Police Officers; All Bailiffs; All Deputies; All Law Colleges; All Law Enforcements; All North Carolina House of Representatives Members; All North Carolina Senate Members; All Federal Bureau of Investigation Employees; All State Bureau of Investigation Employees; All Bar Associations; All County Governments; All County Employees; All County Commissioners; All Mayors; All City Governments; All Town Governments; All County Attorneys; All City Attorneys; All Elected Government, Federal, State, County, City, Towns; All Elected Government Officials; All College Sororities; All Clubs, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-1524.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: August 26, 2009.
Decided: September 1, 2009.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, District Judge. (7:09-cv-00037-D).

Timothy Bryan Larrimore, Appellant Pro Se.

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Timothy Bryan Larrimore appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint as frivolous and imposing monetary sanctions and a prefiling injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Larrimore v. North Carolina, No. 7:09-cv-00037-D (E.D.N.C. April 2, 2009). We deny Larrimore’s pending motions and 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.

Page 6

jdjungle