King v. Does

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedAugust 19, 2009
Docket09-6601
StatusUnpublished

This text of King v. Does (King v. Does) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
King v. Does, (4th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6601

MOSES KING,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHN DOES, various DEA Agents; JOHN DOES, various US Marshal Service Agents,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

JOHN DOE, Deputy; DEA AGENTS; DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. David C. Norton, District Judge. (6:07-cv-04155-DCN)

Submitted: July 20, 2009 Decided: August 19, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Moses King, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Moses King appeals the district court’s orders: (1)

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 (2) denying his motion for reconsideration. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. King v.

John Does, No. 6:07-cv-04155-DCN (D.S.C. Feb. 4 & Feb. 19,

2009). 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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
King v. Does, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-does-ca4-2009.