Filed: May 21, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7307 LAWRENCE MICHAEL HARRISON, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee, and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-513-BR) Submitted: April 27, 20
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7307 LAWRENCE MICHAEL HARRISON, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee, and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-513-BR) Submitted: April 27, 200..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7307 LAWRENCE MICHAEL HARRISON, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee, and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior Dis- trict Judge. (CA-99-513-BR) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 21, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence Michael Harrison, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Lawrence Michael Harrison, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying his claim for damages under the FTCA. We have re- viewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Harrison v. United States, No. CA-99-513-BR (E.D.N.C. Aug. 15, 2000). 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 2