Filed: Aug. 03, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6249 BYRON H. MOOREHEAD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus B. A. BLEDSOE, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (CA-05-59-GEC) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 3, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bryon H. Moorehead, Appellant Pro Se. Unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6249 BYRON H. MOOREHEAD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus B. A. BLEDSOE, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (CA-05-59-GEC) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 3, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bryon H. Moorehead, Appellant Pro Se. Unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6249
BYRON H. MOOREHEAD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
B. A. BLEDSOE, Warden,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.
(CA-05-59-GEC)
Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 3, 2005
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bryon H. Moorehead, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Byron H. Moorehead appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his Bivens* complaint. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. See Moorehead v.
Bledsoe, No. CA-05-59-GEC (W.D. Va. Feb. 2, 2005). 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
*
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). Moorehead filed a petition under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), which the district court properly
construed as a Bivens action.
- 2 -