Filed: Feb. 15, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7565 JAMAL MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VINCENT B. LISSI, individually, and in his official capacity as an agent or employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigations; JOHN C. BEVINGTON, individually, and in his official capacity as an agent or employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. J
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7565 JAMAL MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VINCENT B. LISSI, individually, and in his official capacity as an agent or employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigations; JOHN C. BEVINGTON, individually, and in his official capacity as an agent or employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Ja..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7565
JAMAL MITCHELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
VINCENT B. LISSI, individually, and in his
official capacity as an agent or employee of
the Federal Bureau of Investigations; JOHN C.
BEVINGTON, individually, and in his official
capacity as an agent or employee of the
Federal Bureau of Investigations,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-1190-1)
Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 15, 2005
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jamal Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Patrick Bernard Kernan, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jamal Mitchell appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to Defendants in his action 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
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. See Mitchell v. Lissi, No. CA-03-1190-1 (E.D.
Va. Aug. 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 -