Filed: Aug. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6329 DAVID EARL WATTLETON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:16-ct-03063-BO) Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 28, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Wattleton, A
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6329 DAVID EARL WATTLETON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:16-ct-03063-BO) Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 28, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Wattleton, Ap..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6329
DAVID EARL WATTLETON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:16-ct-03063-BO)
Submitted: August 24, 2017 Decided: August 28, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Wattleton, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Wattleton appeals the district court’s order denying relief on 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, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Wattleton v. Lynch, No. 5:16-ct-03063-BO (E.D.N.C.
Feb. 28, 2017). 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