Smith v. Davis

Fourth Circuit

Smith v. Davis

528 F. App'x 288

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 11, 2013

DocketNo. 13-6413

StatusPublished

This text of 528 F. App'x 288 (Smith v. Davis) 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

Smith v. Davis, 528 F. App'x 288 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

[289]*289Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Franklin C. Smith appeals the district court’s order dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006) his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 408 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 for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Davis, No. 2:13-cv-00043-RAJ-TEM (E.D.Va. Feb. 8, 2013). We deny Smith’s motion to transfer venue. See Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1238-39 (11th Cir.2000). 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

[289]*289Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Franklin C. Smith appeals the district court’s order dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006) his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 408 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 for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Davis, No. 2:13-cv-00043-RAJ-TEM (E.D.Va. Feb. 8, 2013). We deny Smith’s motion to transfer venue. See Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234, 1238-39 (11th Cir.2000). 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)

528 F. App'x 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-davis-ca4-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack