Filed: Apr. 27, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7773 ANTHONY ANDREWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ELIZABETH MS. LIBBY JORDAN; JAMES C. FOX, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:06-CT-3047-H) Submitted: April 11, 2007 Decided: April 27, 2007 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublishe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7773 ANTHONY ANDREWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ELIZABETH MS. LIBBY JORDAN; JAMES C. FOX, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:06-CT-3047-H) Submitted: April 11, 2007 Decided: April 27, 2007 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7773
ANTHONY ANDREWS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ELIZABETH MS. LIBBY JORDAN; JAMES C. FOX,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior
District Judge. (5:06-CT-3047-H)
Submitted: April 11, 2007 Decided: April 27, 2007
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Andrews, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Andrews appeals the district court’s order
dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000) his complaint
filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau
of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). Andrews also appeals the
district court’s denial of his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find
that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal
for the reasons stated by the district court. See Andrews v.
Jordan, No. 5:06-CT-3047-H (E.D.N.C. June 19, 2006 & Sept. 29,
2006). 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 -