Filed: Feb. 04, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7574 ANDREW WINDSOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NASH W. SCHOTT, A.U.S.A.; DREWRY B. HUTCHESON, JR., Esquire, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-516-3) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 4, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7574 ANDREW WINDSOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NASH W. SCHOTT, A.U.S.A.; DREWRY B. HUTCHESON, JR., Esquire, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-516-3) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 4, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7574
ANDREW WINDSOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
NASH W. SCHOTT, A.U.S.A.; DREWRY B. HUTCHESON,
JR., Esquire,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-97-516-3)
Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 4, 1998
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew Windsor, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismiss-
ing without prejudice 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. Windsor v. Schott, No. CA-97-516-3 (E.D. Va. Sept. 29,
1997). 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
*
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971).
2