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Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6337 PERCY ALLEN WILLIAMS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GRAHAM C. MULLEN; WILLIAM B. TRAXLER,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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6337 PERCY ALLEN WILLIAMS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GRAHAM C. MULLEN; WILLIAM B. TRAXLER,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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Willi..
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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