Washington v. Stewart

Fourth Circuit

Washington v. Stewart

699 F. App'x 205

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 20, 2017·No. No. 17-6289·Published

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David N. Washington appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal 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 for the reasons stated by the district court. Washington v. Stewart, No. 8:15-cv-03181-DKC, 2017 WL 550032 (D. Md. Feb. 10, 2017). We deny Washington’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David N. Washington appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal 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 for the reasons stated by the district court. Washington v. Stewart, No. 8:15-cv-03181-DKC, 2017 WL 550032 (D. Md. Feb. 10, 2017). We deny Washington’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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

Washington v. Stewart, 699 F. App'x 205 (4th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

699 F. App'x 205 (Washington v. Stewart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related