Eugene Holmes v. Elaine Marshall, No. 09-1101 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1101 EUGENE T. HOLMES, Plaintiff Appellant, v. ELAINE F. MARSHALL, NC Secretary of State; DEREK G.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 Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Eugene T. Holmes appeals the district court s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint as frivolous, pursuant to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). reviewed the record and find no reversible error. we affirm Holmes v. 2009). legal before for the Marshall, reasons No. stated by the 3:08-cv-00600-MR-CH We have Accordingly, district (W.D.N.C. court. Jan 14, We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.