Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

91-2137 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 91-2137 Visitors: 41
Filed: Jan. 31, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 953 F.2d 638 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Orville LEWIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William FINEFIELD; Jack Dugas, Lieutenant Colonel; Ed Keeley; John Cunningham; Jacob Smith; Harriet Legion; Gerald Beasley, Defendants-Appellees, and United States of America; Pete Bondi
More

953 F.2d 638

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Orville LEWIS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
William FINEFIELD; Jack Dugas, Lieutenant Colonel; Ed
Keeley; John Cunningham; Jacob Smith; Harriet
Legion; Gerald Beasley, Defendants-Appellees,
and
United States of America; Pete Bondi, Admiral, Commander,
Defense General Supply Center, Defendants.

No. 91-2137.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 23, 1991.
Decided Jan. 31, 1992.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, District Judge. (CA-90-668-R)

Orville Lewis, Jr., appellant pro se.

E.D.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

1

Orville Lewis, Jr., appeals from the district court's order dismissing Lewis's Bivens* action seeking damages and injunctive relief for adverse personnel actions taken against him. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Lewis v. United States, No. CA-90-668-R (E.D.Va. June 26, 1991). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

*

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

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