Filed: Sep. 11, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7068 RICK TODD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATTI LLEWELLYN; CINDY TINKHAM, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-313) Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: September 11, 2002 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rick Todd, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7068 RICK TODD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATTI LLEWELLYN; CINDY TINKHAM, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-313) Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: September 11, 2002 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rick Todd, Appellant Pro Se. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7068
RICK TODD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
PATTI LLEWELLYN; CINDY TINKHAM,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-02-313)
Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: September 11, 2002
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rick Todd, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Rick Todd appeals the district court’s order dismissing as
frivolous his action filed under 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 Todd v. Llewellyn, No. CA-02-313 (E.D.N.C. June 12,
2002). We deny Todd’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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