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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7528 DANIEL H. KING, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General; CHARLES E.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
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7528 DANIEL H. KING, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General; CHARLES E.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 unp..
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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