Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Davis v. Howard, 97-6623 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-6623 Visitors: 20
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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6623 ROBERT LEE DAVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MALCOLM J. HOWARD, Defendant - Appellee.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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
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                             UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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