Tucker v. Hambrick
Tucker v. Hambrick
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-7514
TIMOTHY C. TUCKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MARGARET HAMBRICK; R. L. MATHEWS; TOM WOOTEN; STEPHEN DEWALT; GENE HARRIS; CATHY TUCKER; MR. AARON; RODNEY WYRICK; MS. VIVIAN; KENNETH KEPLEY; CURTIS HISE; DAVID OLIVER; CARLOS ASCENSIO; MS. APONTE; SURENDRA RISHI; SUHASINI SHAW; VALERIE KEMPER; MARVIN SLUSSER; MS. RIGHT; CARALYN SUMLER; JOHN RUSSELL; MR. QUIN- TANA; MR. GERALD; THOMAS CUSUCCIO; LINDSY NORTHERTON; JASON PAYNE; MR. HARRIS,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
KATHLEEN HAWK SAWYER,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-408-2)
Submitted: December 19, 2001 Decided: January 18, 2002
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy C. Tucker, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
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(1971). We
have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to pro-
ceed 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 conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished