Lewis v. Obama

Fourth Circuit

Lewis v. Obama

474 F. App'x 284

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 26, 2012

DocketNo. 12-6484

StatusPublished

This text of 474 F. App'x 284 (Lewis v. Obama) 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

Lewis v. Obama, 474 F. App'x 284 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Harrison Lewis, III, appeals the district court’s order dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006) 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 that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Lewis v. Obama, No. 5:11-ct-03139-D, [285]*2852012 WL 628800 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 27, 2012). 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.

DISMISSED.

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

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Harrison Lewis, III, appeals the district court’s order dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006) 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 that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Lewis v. Obama, No. 5:11-ct-03139-D, [285]*2852012 WL 628800 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 27, 2012). 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.

DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 F. App'x 284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-obama-ca4-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack