Filed: Sep. 23, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6936 ANTHONY ANDREWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES C. FOX, District Judge; MS. LIBBY, Staff Attorney; LAW CLERKS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-245-5-H) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 23, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublishe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6936 ANTHONY ANDREWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES C. FOX, District Judge; MS. LIBBY, Staff Attorney; LAW CLERKS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-245-5-H) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 23, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6936
ANTHONY ANDREWS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JAMES C. FOX, District Judge; MS. LIBBY, Staff
Attorney; LAW CLERKS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CA-04-245-5-H)
Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 23, 2004
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Andrews, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Andrews appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his action filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971), and
dismissing claims against a federal judge, his staff attorney and
his unnamed law clerks as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
(2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as frivolous for the reasons
stated by the district court. See Andrews v. Fox, No. CT-04-245-
5-H (E.D.N.C. May 11, 2004). 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.
DISMISSED
- 2 -