Filed: Oct. 08, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7019 PAUL NAGY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER RUFFIN; NANCY OBERMAN; A. EVANS; STEPHEN DEWALT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-782-5-BO) Submitted: September 23, 2002 Decided: October 8, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7019 PAUL NAGY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER RUFFIN; NANCY OBERMAN; A. EVANS; STEPHEN DEWALT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-782-5-BO) Submitted: September 23, 2002 Decided: October 8, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7019
PAUL NAGY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
OFFICER RUFFIN; NANCY OBERMAN; A. EVANS;
STEPHEN DEWALT,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CA-00-782-5-BO)
Submitted: September 23, 2002 Decided: October 8, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul Nagy, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Paul Nagy appeals the district court’s order denying his
motion to reopen an action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of 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 Nagy v. Ruffin, No. CA-00-782-5-BO (E.D.N.C.
June 7, 2002). 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