Filed: Aug. 25, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6808 LANDON FUNDERBURK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JANET RENO; J. M. VANYUR, Warden; MARK HENRY; ED CROSLEY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-234-5-F) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 25, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges. Aff
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6808 LANDON FUNDERBURK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JANET RENO; J. M. VANYUR, Warden; MARK HENRY; ED CROSLEY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-234-5-F) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 25, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges. Affi..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6808
LANDON FUNDERBURK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JANET RENO; J. M. VANYUR, Warden; MARK HENRY;
ED CROSLEY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District
Judge. (CA-97-234-5-F)
Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 25, 1997
Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Landon Morris Funderburk, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 relief 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. Funderburk v. Reno,
No. CA-97-234-5-F (E.D.N.C. May 21, 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