Tucker v. Hambrick

25 F. App'x 184
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 18, 2002·No. No. 01-7514·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Timothy C. Tucker appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint, which the court properly construed as filed under 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 the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Tucker v. Hambrick, No. CA-01-408-2 (E.D.Va. Aug. 7, 2001). We deny the motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in [185] the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

Tucker v. Hambrick, 25 F. App'x 184 (4th Cir. 2002).

25 F. App'x 184 (Tucker v. Hambrick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tucker v. Hambrick
537 U.S. 911 (Supreme Court, 2002)