Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Odiana v. Rickards, 96-6520 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6520 Visitors: 55
Filed: Sep. 04, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6520 ANTHONY IKEZAU ODIANA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CAROLYN V. RICKARDS, Warden; BRIAN SMITH, Case Manager, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-96-112) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 4, 1996 Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



                            No. 96-6520



ANTHONY IKEZAU ODIANA,

                                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus

CAROLYN V. RICKARDS, Warden; BRIAN SMITH, Case
Manager,

                                           Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria.    Claude M. Hilton, District
Judge. (CA-96-112)


Submitted:   August 22, 1996           Decided:     September 4, 1996


Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Anthony Ikezau Odiana, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying re-

lief on his Bivens* complaint. We have reviewed the record and the
district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Odiana v.
Rickards, No. CA-96-112 (E.D. Va. Mar. 13, 1996). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-

ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.




                                                          AFFIRMED




     *
       See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 
403 U.S. 388
 (1971).

                                  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