Filed: Mar. 29, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6047 WILLIAM ROOSEVELT CLOUD, Petitioner – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; KURT W. MEYERS; MICHAEL SAVAGE; KENNETH RANDALL; FRANK D. WHITNEY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-00775-RJC) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6047 WILLIAM ROOSEVELT CLOUD, Petitioner – Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; KURT W. MEYERS; MICHAEL SAVAGE; KENNETH RANDALL; FRANK D. WHITNEY, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-00775-RJC) Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013 Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6047
WILLIAM ROOSEVELT CLOUD,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; KURT W. MEYERS; MICHAEL SAVAGE;
KENNETH RANDALL; FRANK D. WHITNEY,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-00775-RJC)
Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013
Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Roosevelt Cloud, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Roosevelt Cloud 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, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Cloud v. United States, No.
3:12-cv-00775-RJC (W.D.N.C. Dec. 28, 2012). 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