United States v. Pleasants
67 F. App'x 238
4th Cir.
2003
Check Treatment
Docket

Michael A. SCOTT; Terry Scott, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Incorporated; General Electric Company; GE Capital Mortgage Services, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-1327

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Submitted May 8, 2003. Decided June 27, 2003.

238

Michael A. Scott, Terry Scott, Appellants Pro Se. Stanley Graves Barr, Jr., Kaufman & Canoles, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Michael and Terry Scott appeal the district court‘s judgment granting partial summary judgment to the Appellees and dismissing their complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm in part for the reasons stated by the district court. See . Although the Scotts may have been entitled to amend the complaint as of right, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), we have reviewed the additional claims raised in the proposed amended complaint and find the amendment futile. We also deny the Scotts’ motions for summary reversal and an injunction. 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.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny Macon PLEASANTS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-6016

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Submitted June 3, 2003. Decided June 30, 2003.

Johnny Macon Pleasants, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Johnny Macon Pleasants seeks to appeal the district court‘s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pleasants has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See . Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.

DISMISSED.

Tyrone A. QUILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer BYRD, Defendant-Appellee, and Mr. Strahan; Ernest Sutton, Superintendent; Norse Koeblin, Defendants.

No. 03-6625

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Submitted June 19, 2003. Decided June 30, 2003.

Tyrone A. Quiller, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth F. Parsons, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Tyrone A. Quiller seeks to appeal the district court‘s order substantially adopting the magistrate judge‘s report and recommendation and dismissing Quiller‘s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court‘s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” (quoting ).

The district court‘s order was entered on the docket on March 7, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on April 13,