Filed: Dec. 05, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6793 JOSE FRANCISCO NOESI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus B. A. BLEDSOE; MICHAEL MCCLAIN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-05-141-7-SGW) Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 5, 2005 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose Francisco No
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6793 JOSE FRANCISCO NOESI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus B. A. BLEDSOE; MICHAEL MCCLAIN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-05-141-7-SGW) Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 5, 2005 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose Francisco Noe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6793
JOSE FRANCISCO NOESI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
B. A. BLEDSOE; MICHAEL MCCLAIN,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.
(CA-05-141-7-SGW)
Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 5, 2005
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jose Francisco Noesi, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jose Francisco Noesi appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his Bivens v. Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971) complaint as frivolous under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. See Noesi v. Bledsoe, No. CA-05-141-7-SGW
(W.D. Va. Mar. 14, 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
- 2 -