Filed: Jul. 15, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6028 GEORGE MUDD, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. IRWIN W. FISH, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:08-cv-00641-jlk-mfu) Submitted: June 23, 2010 Decided: July 15, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Mudd, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Bugbee
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6028 GEORGE MUDD, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. IRWIN W. FISH, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:08-cv-00641-jlk-mfu) Submitted: June 23, 2010 Decided: July 15, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Mudd, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Bugbee ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6028
GEORGE MUDD,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
IRWIN W. FISH,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:08-cv-00641-jlk-mfu)
Submitted: June 23, 2010 Decided: July 15, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George Mudd, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Bugbee Winn, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
George Mudd appeals the district court’s order
granting Defendant summary judgment on what it construed as an
action brought pursuant to 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
the district court’s order. See Mudd v. Fish, No. 7:08-cv-
00641-jlk-mfu (W.D. Va. Nov. 24, 2009). 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