Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Todd v. Llewellyn, 02-7068 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-7068 Visitors: 14
Filed: Sep. 11, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7068 RICK TODD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATTI LLEWELLYN; CINDY TINKHAM, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-313) Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: September 11, 2002 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rick Todd, Appellant Pro Se.
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 02-7068



RICK TODD,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


PATTI LLEWELLYN; CINDY TINKHAM,

                                           Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-02-313)


Submitted:   September 5, 2002        Decided:    September 11, 2002


Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Rick Todd, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Rick Todd appeals the district court’s order dismissing as

frivolous his action filed under 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 Todd v. Llewellyn, No. CA-02-313 (E.D.N.C. June 12,

2002).   We deny Todd’s motion for appointment of counsel.       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

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