Filed: Dec. 10, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7035 THEODORE TIMOTHY MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ART BEELER, Warden; B. R. JETT; DR. LOWE; DR. WALASIN; DR. GONZALEZ; B. CAPEHARDT, Dr.; JEAN ZULA, Dr., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-774-5-H) Submitted: November 10, 2004 Decided: December 10, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7035 THEODORE TIMOTHY MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ART BEELER, Warden; B. R. JETT; DR. LOWE; DR. WALASIN; DR. GONZALEZ; B. CAPEHARDT, Dr.; JEAN ZULA, Dr., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-774-5-H) Submitted: November 10, 2004 Decided: December 10, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7035
THEODORE TIMOTHY MILLER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ART BEELER, Warden; B. R. JETT; DR. LOWE; DR.
WALASIN; DR. GONZALEZ; B. CAPEHARDT, Dr.; JEAN
ZULA, Dr.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CA-03-774-5-H)
Submitted: November 10, 2004 Decided: December 10, 2004
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Theodore Timothy Miller, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Theodore Timothy Miller appeals the district court’s
order denying him appointment of counsel and dismissing as
frivolous his claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed
the record and find no abuse of discretion or reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See
Miller v. Beeler, No. CA-03-774-5-H (E.D.N.C. filed April 29, 2004;
entered April 30, 2004). 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 -