Rembert v. Neal

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 4, 2003
Docket02-1933
StatusUnpublished

This text of Rembert v. Neal (Rembert v. Neal) 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
Rembert v. Neal, (4th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1933

CARLTON W. REMBERT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE W. NEAL, Interim Trustee; DEBERA F. CONLON, Assistant Trustee; AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE COMPANY; COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-264-2)

Submitted: January 30, 2003 Decided: February 4, 2003

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlton W. Rembert, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Ray Mayes, WOLCOTT, RIVERS, WHEARY, BASNIGHT & KELLY, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia; Alex Harry Pincus, Portsmouth, Virginia; George Maralan Kelley, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia; Cecelia Ann Weschler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Norfolk, Virginia; Peter Stevenson Lake, John Andrew Basham, HEILIG, MCKENRY, FRAIM & LOLLAR, Norfolk, Virginia; Emmanuel Decena Voces, SAMUEL I. WHITE, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Carlton W. Rembert appeals from the district court’s order

dismissing his action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of

the district court. See Rembert v. Neal, No. CA-02-264-2 (E.D. Va.

July 23, 2002). 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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rembert v. Neal, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rembert-v-neal-ca4-2003.