Filed: Apr. 01, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6194 JOHN D. STRASSINI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MR. DODRILL; DOCTOR FRIEDMAN; MRS. HARLISS; MR. ELLI; WARDEN BEELER; MS. ELSEA; MR. LUNSFORD; JULIA CLEMENS; MR. SWEDER; KEN DAVIS; DOCTOR SHIMM; DOCTOR BUSH; JON CROGAN, Captain; MANAGER JAMES, S.I.S.; LIEUTENANT SMITH; LIEUTENANT MOSCAR; MS. MAYNARD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Rale
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6194 JOHN D. STRASSINI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MR. DODRILL; DOCTOR FRIEDMAN; MRS. HARLISS; MR. ELLI; WARDEN BEELER; MS. ELSEA; MR. LUNSFORD; JULIA CLEMENS; MR. SWEDER; KEN DAVIS; DOCTOR SHIMM; DOCTOR BUSH; JON CROGAN, Captain; MANAGER JAMES, S.I.S.; LIEUTENANT SMITH; LIEUTENANT MOSCAR; MS. MAYNARD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Ralei..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6194
JOHN D. STRASSINI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MR. DODRILL; DOCTOR FRIEDMAN; MRS. HARLISS;
MR. ELLI; WARDEN BEELER; MS. ELSEA; MR.
LUNSFORD; JULIA CLEMENS; MR. SWEDER; KEN
DAVIS; DOCTOR SHIMM; DOCTOR BUSH; JON CROGAN,
Captain; MANAGER JAMES, S.I.S.; LIEUTENANT
SMITH; LIEUTENANT MOSCAR; MS. MAYNARD,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-00-759-5-H)
Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: April 1, 2002
Before NEIMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John D. Strassini, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
John D. Strassini appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his action 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 Strassini v. Dodrill, No. CA-00-759-5-H (E.D.N.C. Jan.
16, 2002). 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
2