Lora v. Hollenhorst

194 F. App'x 108
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided August 16, 2006·No. No. 05-7658·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora 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, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and his Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lora v. Hollenhorst, No. CA-05-738-1 (E.D.Va. filed July 5, 2005 & entered July 6, 2005; filed Aug. 1, 2005 & entered Aug. 2, 2005). We deny Lora’s motion to consolidate and 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

Lora v. Hollenhorst, 194 F. App'x 108 (4th Cir. 2006).

194 F. App'x 108 (Lora v. Hollenhorst) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related