Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    Noesi v. Bledsoe, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Jose Francisco Noesi filed a Bivens complaint against B.A. Bledsoe and Michael McClain that was dismissed as frivolous by the district court under 28 U.S.C. 1915A. 2) Noesi appealed the district court's dismissal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding no reversible error, and dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Noesi v. Bledsoe, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    1) Jose Francisco Noesi filed a Bivens complaint against B.A. Bledsoe and Michael McClain that was dismissed as frivolous by the district court under 28 U.S.C. 1915A. 2) Noesi appealed the district court's dismissal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding no reversible error, and dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-12-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6793

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Jose Francisco Noesi filed a Bivens complaint against B.A. Bledsoe and Michael McClain that was dismissed as frivolous by the district court under 28 U.S.C. 1915A. 2) Noesi appealed the district court's dismissal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding no reversible error, and dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    7 views2 pages

    Noesi v. Bledsoe, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Jose Francisco Noesi filed a Bivens complaint against B.A. Bledsoe and Michael McClain that was dismissed as frivolous by the district court under 28 U.S.C. 1915A. 2) Noesi appealed the district court's dismissal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 3) The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding no reversible error, and dispensed with oral argument as the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the court materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-6793

    JOSE FRANCISCO NOESI,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    B. A. BLEDSOE; MICHAEL MCCLAIN,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.
    (CA-05-141-7-SGW)

    Submitted:

    November 22, 2005

    Decided:

    December 5, 2005

    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jose Francisco Noesi, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Jose Francisco Noesi appeals the district courts order
    dismissing his Bivens v. Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
    Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) complaint as frivolous under 28
    U.S.C. 1915A (2000).

    We have reviewed the record and find no

    reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by


    the district court.

    See Noesi v. Bledsoe, No. CA-05-141-7-SGW

    (W.D. Va. Mar. 14, 2005).

    We dispense with oral argument because

    the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the


    materials

    before

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 2 -

    You might also like