Filed: Sep. 24, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 24, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1787 ANDREW U.D. STRAW, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (3:19-cv-02531-JMC) Submitted: September 22, 2020 Decided: September 24, 2020 Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew U.D. Straw, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-1787 ANDREW U.D. STRAW, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (3:19-cv-02531-JMC) Submitted: September 22, 2020 Decided: September 24, 2020 Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew U.D. Straw, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1787
ANDREW U.D. STRAW,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (3:19-cv-02531-JMC)
Submitted: September 22, 2020 Decided: September 24, 2020
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew U.D. Straw, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Andrew U. D. Straw appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice
his complaint based on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Straw v. United States,
No. 3:19-cv-02531-JMC (D.S.C. June 29, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2