Filed: Oct. 31, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7087 COY RAY PHELPS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN ASHCROFT; KATHLEEN HAWK-SAWYER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-461-5-H) Submitted: October 23, 2003 Decided: October 31, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Coy Ray Phelps,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7087 COY RAY PHELPS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN ASHCROFT; KATHLEEN HAWK-SAWYER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-461-5-H) Submitted: October 23, 2003 Decided: October 31, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Coy Ray Phelps, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7087
COY RAY PHELPS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT; KATHLEEN HAWK-SAWYER,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-03-461-5-H)
Submitted: October 23, 2003 Decided: October 31, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Coy Ray Phelps, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Coy Phelps appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his
complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971), as frivolous. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) (2000). We have reviewed the record and the
district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Phelps
v. Ashcroft, No. CA-03-461-5-H (E.D.N.C. July 7, 2003). 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