Filed: Jan. 22, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8104 RAPHAEL MENDEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. W. EARL BRITT, Federal Judge; JAMES B. CRAVEN, III, Federal Appointed Counsel; ALAN DUBOIS, Federal Appointed Attorney; JANE E. PEARCE, Federal Appointed Attorney, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:08-ct-03135-D) Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided:
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8104 RAPHAEL MENDEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. W. EARL BRITT, Federal Judge; JAMES B. CRAVEN, III, Federal Appointed Counsel; ALAN DUBOIS, Federal Appointed Attorney; JANE E. PEARCE, Federal Appointed Attorney, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:08-ct-03135-D) Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: J..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8104
RAPHAEL MENDEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
W. EARL BRITT, Federal Judge; JAMES B. CRAVEN, III, Federal
Appointed Counsel; ALAN DUBOIS, Federal Appointed Attorney;
JANE E. PEARCE, Federal Appointed Attorney,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:08-ct-03135-D)
Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 22, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raphael Mendez, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raphael Mendez seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal as frivolous. We also
deny the motion to “notice of error”. 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