Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    Daniel King v. Attorney General, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Daniel King appealed the district court's denial of relief on his Bivens complaint against Attorney General Eric Holder and other government officials. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The unpublished opinion states that the appeals court reviewed the record and agrees with the district court's reasons for denying King's complaint. The court decided oral arguments were not necessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Daniel King v. Attorney General, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    Daniel King appealed the district court's denial of relief on his Bivens complaint against Attorney General Eric Holder and other government officials. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The unpublished opinion states that the appeals court reviewed the record and agrees with the district court's reasons for denying King's complaint. The court decided oral arguments were not necessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-01-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-7439

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Daniel King appealed the district court's denial of relief on his Bivens complaint against Attorney General Eric Holder and other government officials. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The unpublished opinion states that the appeals court reviewed the record and agrees with the district court's reasons for denying King's complaint. The court decided oral arguments were not necessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Daniel King v. Attorney General, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Daniel King appealed the district court's denial of relief on his Bivens complaint against Attorney General Eric Holder and other government officials. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, finding no reversible error. The unpublished opinion states that the appeals court reviewed the record and agrees with the district court's reasons for denying King's complaint. The court decided oral arguments were not necessary because the facts and legal issues were adequately explained in the case 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. 14-7439

    DANIEL H. KING,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER; KATHLEEN SIBELIUS; CHARLES E.
    SAMUELS, JR.; JUSTIN ANDREWS,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Louise W. Flanagan,
    District Judge. (5:13-ct-03179-FL)

    Submitted:

    January 22, 2015

    Decided:

    January 27, 2015

    Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Daniel H. King, Appellant Pro Se.


    Kimberly Ann Moore, Thomas
    Gray Walker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES, Raleigh, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Daniel

    H.

    King

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six


    Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
    (1971).
    error.

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible


    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

    district court.

    King v. Holder, No. 5:13-ct-03179-FL (E.D.N.C.

    Sept. 22, 2014).


    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the


    contentions

    are

    adequately

    this

    and

    argument

    court

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like