Filed: Feb. 11, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7882 PAUL NAGY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER RUFFIN; NANCY OBERMAN; A. EVANS; STEPHEN M. DEWALT, Defendants -Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-782-5-BO) Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 11, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpu
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7882 PAUL NAGY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER RUFFIN; NANCY OBERMAN; A. EVANS; STEPHEN M. DEWALT, Defendants -Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-782-5-BO) Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 11, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpub..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7882
PAUL NAGY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
OFFICER RUFFIN; NANCY OBERMAN; A. EVANS;
STEPHEN M. DEWALT,
Defendants -Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CA-00-782-5-BO)
Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 11, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul Nagy, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Paul Nagy appeals the district court’s order denying relief on
his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents
of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed
the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. Nagy v. Ruffin, No. CA-00-782-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 11,
2001). Because Nagy may refile his action after exhaustion, we
modify the dismissal to be without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 2106
(1994). 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 AS MODIFIED
2