Filed: Apr. 18, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7562 MICHAEL E. HODGE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (1:05-cv-00707-TSE) Submitted: November 17, 2006 Decided: April 18, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael E. Hodge, Appel
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7562 MICHAEL E. HODGE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (1:05-cv-00707-TSE) Submitted: November 17, 2006 Decided: April 18, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael E. Hodge, Appell..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7562
MICHAEL E. HODGE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (1:05-cv-00707-TSE)
Submitted: November 17, 2006 Decided: April 18, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael E. Hodge, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Ranieri, Brian
Eugene Bentley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael E. Hodge appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing his civil action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the
Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries that he received as a result
of surgery performed on his right foot. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. See Hodge v. United States, No.
1:05-cv-00707-TSE (E.D. Va. July 11, 2005 & Aug. 11, 2006). 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 -