Filed: Mar. 31, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6059 TERRY LEE ROSEBORO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LUCKY T. OSHO, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-178-5) Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 31, 2005 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Te
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6059 TERRY LEE ROSEBORO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LUCKY T. OSHO, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-178-5) Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 31, 2005 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ter..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6059
TERRY LEE ROSEBORO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LUCKY T. OSHO,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen,
Chief District Judge. (CA-04-178-5)
Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 31, 2005
Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terry Lee Roseboro, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Terry Lee Roseboro appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971), for
failure to state a claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2000), and
denying his subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have
reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. See Roseboro v. Osho, No. CA-04-178-5
(W.D.N.C. Nov. 29, 2004 & Dec. 20, 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.
AFFIRMED
- 2 -