Filed: Jun. 06, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6043 PHILLIP ERNEST DIXON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR ALEXANDER, Head of Psychiatric Department, Defendant - Appellee, and MS. MENDOZA, Hospital Administrator; MR. NORWOOD, A/W Operations; KATHLEEN HAWK-SAWYER, Director, Bureau of Prisons; JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-03-2
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6043 PHILLIP ERNEST DIXON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR ALEXANDER, Head of Psychiatric Department, Defendant - Appellee, and MS. MENDOZA, Hospital Administrator; MR. NORWOOD, A/W Operations; KATHLEEN HAWK-SAWYER, Director, Bureau of Prisons; JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-03-23..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6043
PHILLIP ERNEST DIXON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DOCTOR ALEXANDER, Head of Psychiatric
Department,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
MS. MENDOZA, Hospital Administrator; MR.
NORWOOD, A/W Operations; KATHLEEN HAWK-SAWYER,
Director, Bureau of Prisons; JOSEPH BROOKS,
Warden,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-03-231)
Submitted: May 18, 2005 Decided: June 6, 2005
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Phillip Ernest Dixon, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Phillip Ernest Dixon appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on 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 Dixon v.
Alexander, No. CA-03-231 (E.D. Va. Nov. 9, 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
- 3 -