Filed: Feb. 13, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7815 WAYNE JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SARA E. FLANNERY, Administrative Agent; RICHARD L. WILLIAMS, Administrative Minister; YOUNGBLOOD, DEA Agent; WILLIAM B. ENGLAND, Drug Investigator; LARRY A. LOVELESS, Drug Task Force; RANDY BELYEN, U.S. Marshall; JOHN WALSH, DEA; LISA D. SOMER, DEA; ROBERT VALENTINE, DEA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virgini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7815 WAYNE JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SARA E. FLANNERY, Administrative Agent; RICHARD L. WILLIAMS, Administrative Minister; YOUNGBLOOD, DEA Agent; WILLIAM B. ENGLAND, Drug Investigator; LARRY A. LOVELESS, Drug Task Force; RANDY BELYEN, U.S. Marshall; JOHN WALSH, DEA; LISA D. SOMER, DEA; ROBERT VALENTINE, DEA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7815
WAYNE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SARA E. FLANNERY, Administrative Agent;
RICHARD L. WILLIAMS, Administrative Minister;
YOUNGBLOOD, DEA Agent; WILLIAM B. ENGLAND,
Drug Investigator; LARRY A. LOVELESS, Drug
Task Force; RANDY BELYEN, U.S. Marshall; JOHN
WALSH, DEA; LISA D. SOMER, DEA; ROBERT
VALENTINE, DEA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CA-02-294-3)
Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 13, 2003
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wayne Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Wayne Johnson appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint, which the court
properly construed as an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Johnson v.
Flannery, No. CA-02-294-3 (E.D. Va. Oct. 18, 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