Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Daniel King v. Eric Holder, Jr., 14-7528 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-7528 Visitors: 68
Filed: Mar. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7528 DANIEL H. KING, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General; CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR.; CHARLES RATLEDGE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:14-ct-03062-FL) Submitted: February 25, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by un
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 14-7528


DANIEL H. KING,

                  Plaintiff - Appellant,

          v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General; CHARLES E. SAMUELS,
JR.; CHARLES RATLEDGE,

                  Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:14-ct-03062-FL)


Submitted:   February 25, 2015              Decided:   March 2, 2015


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Daniel H. King, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

          Daniel   H.   King   appeals   the   district   court’s   order

dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012) his complaint

filed 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 for

the reasons stated by the district court.         King v. Holder, No.

5:14-ct-03062-FL (E.D.N.C. Oct. 7, 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer