Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Williams v. Mullen, 11-6337 (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 11-6337 Visitors: 19
Filed: Jun. 01, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6337 PERCY ALLEN WILLIAMS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GRAHAM C. MULLEN; WILLIAM B. TRAXLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00621-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Percy Allen Will
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 11-6337


PERCY ALLEN WILLIAMS, JR.,

                Plaintiff - Appellant,

          v.

GRAHAM C. MULLEN; WILLIAM B. TRAXLER,

                Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:10-cv-00621-RAJ-TEM)


Submitted:   May 26, 2011                     Decided:   June 1, 2011


Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Percy Allen Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

          Percy    Allen    Williams,     Jr.,    appeals    the     district

court’s orders denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,

403 U.S. 388
(1971), and his motion to reconsider.                   We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error.             Accordingly,

we deny Williams’ motion to amend his complaint and affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court.            Williams v. Mullen,

No. 2:10-cv-00621-RAJ-TEM (E.D. Va. Feb. 3, 2011).                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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer