Lee v. Loranth

Fourth Circuit

Lee v. Loranth

544 F. App'x 220

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 25, 2013·No. No. 13-7017·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Lee appeals the district court’s order 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, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lee v. Loranth, No. 4:12-cv-02547-DCN, 2013 WL 2635843 (D.S.C. June 12, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Lee appeals the district court’s order 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, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lee v. Loranth, No. 4:12-cv-02547-DCN, 2013 WL 2635843 (D.S.C. June 12, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Lee v. Loranth, 544 F. App'x 220 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

544 F. App'x 220 (Lee v. Loranth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related