Filed: Oct. 27, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7020 BRIAN KEITH CLONTZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN M. VANYUR; BONNIE HALDERSON; MICHAEL WINKLMEIR; VICTOR SIHA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-99-115-5-F) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 27, 1999 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7020 BRIAN KEITH CLONTZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN M. VANYUR; BONNIE HALDERSON; MICHAEL WINKLMEIR; VICTOR SIHA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-99-115-5-F) Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 27, 1999 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. A..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7020
BRIAN KEITH CLONTZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JOHN M. VANYUR; BONNIE HALDERSON; MICHAEL
WINKLMEIR; VICTOR SIHA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.
(CA-99-115-5-F)
Submitted: October 21, 1999 Decided: October 27, 1999
Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian Keith Clontz, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Brian Keith Clontz appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion to reconsider the dismissal of his complaint alleging a
claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau
of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). 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. See
Clontz v. Vanyur, No. CA-99-115-5-F (E.D.N.C. June 14, 1999). We
grant Clontz’s motion to supplement the record on appeal and dis-
pense 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
2