Filed: May 18, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6256 MUHAMMAD JALAL DEEN AKBAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JEAN ZULA, Psychiatrist; SALLY JOHNSON, Doctor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-796-5-BO) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 18, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6256 MUHAMMAD JALAL DEEN AKBAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JEAN ZULA, Psychiatrist; SALLY JOHNSON, Doctor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-796-5-BO) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 18, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6256
MUHAMMAD JALAL DEEN AKBAR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JEAN ZULA, Psychiatrist; SALLY JOHNSON, Doctor,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-99-796-5-BO)
Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 18, 2000
Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Muhammad Jalal Deen Akbar, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Muhammad Jalal Deen Akbar appeals from the district court's
order dismissing as frivolous his Bivens* action. Our review of
the record discloses that this appeal is without merit. According-
ly, we affirm the district court’s order on the reasoning of the
district court. See Akbar v. Zula, No. CA-99-796-5-BO (E.D.N.C.
Jan. 28, 2000). We deny Akbar’s pending motions for extraordinary
relief, for an injunction, for an enlargement of time, and, because
this appeal presents no complex issues, we also deny his motion for
appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
*
See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971).
2