Filed: Jul. 20, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1636 JAMES P. MIXON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HENRY C. MORGAN, Judge, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-300-2) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 20, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James P. Mixon, Jr., Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1636 JAMES P. MIXON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HENRY C. MORGAN, Judge, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-300-2) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 20, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James P. Mixon, Jr., Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1636
JAMES P. MIXON, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
HENRY C. MORGAN, Judge,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District
Judge. (CA-00-300-2)
Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 20, 2000
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James P. Mixon, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James P. Mixon, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dis-
missing his Bivens* action. We have reviewed the record and the
district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accord-
ingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Mixon
v. Morgan, No. CA-00-300-2 (E.D. Va. May 2, 2000). We deny Mixon’s
Motion for a Fast and Speedy Trial. 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 Nar-
cotics,
403 U.S. 338 (1971).
2