Filed: Mar. 06, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7979 KUNZEA JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KIM REID, Warden/Executive Administrator (FCI Danbury); DENNIS HARRELL, Assistant Warden (FCI Danbury); MICHAEL LEFEVRE, Unit Manager (FCI Danbury), Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-01-767-2) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 6, 2002 Befo
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7979 KUNZEA JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KIM REID, Warden/Executive Administrator (FCI Danbury); DENNIS HARRELL, Assistant Warden (FCI Danbury); MICHAEL LEFEVRE, Unit Manager (FCI Danbury), Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-01-767-2) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 6, 2002 Befor..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7979
KUNZEA JACKSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
KIM REID, Warden/Executive Administrator (FCI
Danbury); DENNIS HARRELL, Assistant Warden
(FCI Danbury); MICHAEL LEFEVRE, Unit Manager
(FCI Danbury),
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.
(CA-01-767-2)
Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 6, 2002
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kunzea Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kunzea Jackson appeals the district court’s order dismissing
without prejudice for improper venue her action 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. See Jackson v.
Reid, No. CA-01-767-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 10, 2001). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2