Filed: Aug. 25, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6623 ROBERT LEE DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MALCOLM J. HOWARD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-43-7-F1) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 25, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6623 ROBERT LEE DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MALCOLM J. HOWARD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-43-7-F1) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 25, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6623
ROBERT LEE DAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MALCOLM J. HOWARD,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Chief
District Judge. (CA-97-43-7-F1)
Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 25, 1997
Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Lee Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his
motion to reconsider the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994)
complaint * and denying his motion to recuse. We have reviewed the
record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal
is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning
of the district court. Davis v. Howard, No. CA-97-43-7-F1 (E.D.N.C.
Apr. 17, 1997). We deny Appellant's motion to stay and 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.
DISMISSED
*
As noted by the district court, although the action was
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it should have been brought under
Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
403
U.S. 388 (1971).
2