Taylor v. National Security Agency

Fourth Circuit

Taylor v. National Security Agency

655 F. App'x 982

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 30, 2016

DocketNo. 16-6288

StatusPublished

This text of 655 F. App'x 982 (Taylor v. National Security Agency) 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

Taylor v. National Security Agency, 655 F. App'x 982 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Taylor appeals the district court’s orders denying his “motion for a more definite statement” regarding the court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to reconsider the order dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(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). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Taylor v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, No. 5:15-ct-03225-FL (E.D.N.C. Oct. 7, 2015; Dec. 23, 2015). 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.

DISMISSED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Anthony Taylor appeals the district court’s orders denying his “motion for a more definite statement” regarding the court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to reconsider the order dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(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). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Taylor v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, No. 5:15-ct-03225-FL (E.D.N.C. Oct. 7, 2015; Dec. 23, 2015). 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.

DISMISSED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

655 F. App'x 982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-national-security-agency-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack