Matthews v. O'Grady

Fourth Circuit

Matthews v. O'Grady

651 F. App'x 188

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 1, 2016

DocketNo. 16-6214

StatusPublished

This text of 651 F. App'x 188 (Matthews v. O'Grady) 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

Matthews v. O'Grady, 651 F. App'x 188 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alexander Otis Matthews appeals the district court’s order dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(b) (2012) 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 the court’s orders denying Matthews’ multiple motions to amend. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated- by the district court. Matthews v. O’Grady, Nos. 1:15-cv-01162-LMB-TCB, 1:11-cr-00348-LO-1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 2 & 3, 2016). 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Alexander Otis Matthews appeals the district court’s order dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(b) (2012) 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 the court’s orders denying Matthews’ multiple motions to amend. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated- by the district court. Matthews v. O’Grady, Nos. 1:15-cv-01162-LMB-TCB, 1:11-cr-00348-LO-1 (E.D. Va. Feb. 2 & 3, 2016). 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

651 F. App'x 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-ogrady-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack