Filed: Jun. 06, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7785 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TYRONE LEE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-00-209-3) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opin
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7785 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TYRONE LEE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-00-209-3) Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 6, 2001 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opini..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7785
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TYRONE LEE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CA-00-209-3)
Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 6, 2001
Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tyrone Lee, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone Lee appeals the district court’s order denying relief
on his Bivens* complaint. We have reviewed the record and the dis-
trict court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magis-
trate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Lee,
No. CA-00-209-3 (E.D. Va. Nov. 27, 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
*
See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau
of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971).
2