Mudd v. Fish

Fourth Circuit

Mudd v. Fish

388 F. App'x 257

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided July 15, 2010·No. No. 10-6028·Published

Opinion

[258]*258Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding-precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

George Mudd appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant summary judgment on what it construed as an action brought 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 the district court’s order. See Mudd v. Fish, No. 7:08-cv-00641-jlk-mfu, 2009 WL 4110754 (W.D.Va. Nov. 24, 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

[258]*258Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding-precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

George Mudd appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant summary judgment on what it construed as an action brought 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 the district court’s order. See Mudd v. Fish, No. 7:08-cv-00641-jlk-mfu, 2009 WL 4110754 (W.D.Va. Nov. 24, 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.

Mudd v. Fish, 388 F. App'x 257 (4th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

388 F. App'x 257 (Mudd v. Fish) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related