Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Lee, 00-7785 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-7785 Visitors: 20
Filed: Jun. 06, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7785 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TYRONE LEE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-00-209-3) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opin
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 00-7785



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus


TYRONE LEE,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CA-00-209-3)


Submitted:    May 31, 2001                    Decided:   June 6, 2001


Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Tyrone Lee, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Tyrone Lee appeals the district court’s order denying relief

on his Bivens* complaint.   We have reviewed the record and the dis-

trict court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magis-

trate judge and find no reversible error.    Accordingly, we affirm

on the reasoning of the district court.   See United States v. Lee,

No. CA-00-209-3 (E.D. Va. Nov. 27, 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.




                                                           AFFIRMED




     *
       See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau
of Narcotics, 
403 U.S. 388
 (1971).


                                  2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer