Andrews v. Moore

Fourth Circuit

Andrews v. Moore

172 F. App'x 500

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided March 2, 2006·No. No. 05-7289·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Andrews appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), action and his motions for reconsideration pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and 60(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Andrews v. Moore, No. CA-04-174 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 27, 2005 & June 28, 2005). We deny the motions for abeyance and motion to recuse. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Andrews appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), action and his motions for reconsideration pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and 60(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Andrews v. Moore, No. CA-04-174 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 27, 2005 & June 28, 2005). We deny the motions for abeyance and motion to recuse. 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.

Andrews v. Moore, 172 F. App'x 500 (4th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

172 F. App'x 500 (Andrews v. Moore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related