Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sutton v. Farford, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    George Randolph Sutton Jr. appealed a district court order that denied his motions to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against police officers, for an answer to his amended complaint, and to compel an answer. The appeals court affirmed the district court's order, finding no abuse of discretion or reversible error. The appeals court also noted that to the extent Sutton sought to appeal the earlier dismissal of his initial complaint as frivolous, it did not have jurisdiction to consider those arguments because the notice of appeal was untimely as to that earlier order.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-08-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7260

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    George Randolph Sutton Jr. appealed a district court order that denied his motions to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against police officers, for an answer to his amended complaint, and to compel an answer. The appeals court affirmed the district court's order, finding no abuse of discretion or reversible error. The appeals court also noted that to the extent Sutton sought to appeal the earlier dismissal of his initial complaint as frivolous, it did not have jurisdiction to consider those arguments because the notice of appeal was untimely as to that earlier order.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views2 pages

    Sutton v. Farford, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    George Randolph Sutton Jr. appealed a district court order that denied his motions to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against police officers, for an answer to his amended complaint, and to compel an answer. The appeals court affirmed the district court's order, finding no abuse of discretion or reversible error. The appeals court also noted that to the extent Sutton sought to appeal the earlier dismissal of his initial complaint as frivolous, it did not have jurisdiction to consider those arguments because the notice of appeal was untimely as to that earlier order.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-7260

    GEORGE RANDOLPH SUTTON, JR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    RICK
    FARFORD,
    Goldsboro
    Sheriff
    Officer
    Detective; GEORGE RACHEL, Sheriff Department
    Supervisor,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-04-900-5)

    Submitted: August 24, 2006

    Decided: August 28, 2006

    Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    George Randolph Sutton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    George Randolph Sutton, Jr. appeals the district courts
    order denying his motions to amend his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000)
    complaint, for an answer to his amended complaint, and to compel an
    answer following the district courts dismissal of his initial
    complaint as frivolous.*

    We have reviewed the record and find no

    abuse of discretion or reversible error.

    Accordingly, we affirm

    for the reasons stated by the district court.

    See Sutton v.

    Farford, No. CA-04-900-5 (E.D.N.C. filed July 18, 2006; entered


    July 22, 2006).

    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

    To the extent Sutton seeks to appeal the district courts


    prior order dismissing his complaint as frivolous, we are without
    jurisdiction to consider his arguments because his notice of appeal
    was untimely as to that order.
    - 2 -

    You might also like