John the Methodist as Rev. v. The State of North Carolina, No. 13-1685 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1685 JOHN THE METHODIST AS REV. JOHN LEE MORRIS, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; COUNTY OF DURHAM; JUDGE PAUL V. NIEMEYER; JUDGE ROGER L. GREGORY; JUDGE JAMES A. WYNN, JR.; JUDGE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN; JUDGE ANDRE M. DAVIS; JEFFREY ATKINS; WILLIAM K. SUTER; RUTH JONES; JUDGE TREVOR SHARP; GILL P. BECK; UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; JUDGE WILLIAM B. TRAXLER, JR.; JUDGE JAMES A. BEATY, JR., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:12-cv-01359-TDS-LPA) Submitted: October 10, 2013 Decided: October 16, 2013 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Lee Morris, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Kathryn Hicks Shields, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Cheryl Thornton Sloan, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina; Marie Therese Inserra, DURHAM COUNTY ATTORNEY S OFFICE, Durham, North Carolina; Sara Bugbee Winn, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: John Lee Morris, Sr., appeals the district court s order dismissing his civil complaint and imposing a pre-filing injunction. error. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. John the Methodist v. North Carolina, No. 1:12- cv-01359-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C. May 9, 2013). We grant Morris leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, but deny his motions for summary disposition and to put the Bible back in public schools. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the 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.