Filed: Dec. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6903 RANDLE COOKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER; CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR.; KATHLEEN SEBELIUS; JUSTIN ANDREWS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:13-ct-03268-FL) Submitted: October 17, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Sen
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6903 RANDLE COOKE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER; CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR.; KATHLEEN SEBELIUS; JUSTIN ANDREWS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:13-ct-03268-FL) Submitted: October 17, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Seni..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6903
RANDLE COOKE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER; CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR.;
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS; JUSTIN ANDREWS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:13-ct-03268-FL)
Submitted: October 17, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randle Porter Cooke, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Randle Cooke appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971),
for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)
(2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Cooke v. Holder, No. 5:13-ct-03268-FL (E.D.N.C.
June 6, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2