Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Crosby v. Lambert, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders dismissing Jeffrey Roy Crosby's Bivens action against various government officials and agencies and denying his motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals found that Crosby's claims failed as a matter of law and the district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants. The Court of Appeals also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Crosby's Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration as it did not demonstrate that the dismissal was improper.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1999-10-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-6723

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders dismissing Jeffrey Roy Crosby's Bivens action against various government officials and agencies and denying his motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals found that Crosby's claims failed as a matter of law and the district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants. The Court of Appeals also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Crosby's Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration as it did not demonstrate that the dismissal was improper.

    Copyright:

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

    Crosby v. Lambert, 4th Cir. (1999)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders dismissing Jeffrey Roy Crosby's Bivens action against various government officials and agencies and denying his motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals found that Crosby's claims failed as a matter of law and the district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants. The Court of Appeals also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Crosby's Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration as it did not demonstrate that the dismissal was improper.

    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. 99-6723

    JEFFREY ROY CROSBY,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    JOHN LAMBERT; ED SEVERANCE, United States Marshals Service; KEVIN HARVEY, Special Agent,
    Federal Bureau of Investigation; ADMINISTRATOR
    OF ORANGEBURG CALHOUN DETENTION CENTER,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
    Judge. (CA-98-277-5-22JI)

    Submitted:

    October 21, 1999

    Decided:

    October 27, 1999

    Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Jeffrey Roy Crosby, Appellant Pro Se. Clifford Leon Welsh, North
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE
    UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Jeffrey Roy Crosby appeals from the district court's orders
    dismissing his Bivens1 action, and denying his motion for reconsideration filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

    Our review of

    the record discloses that this appeal is without merit. While


    Crosby contends that the district court improperly resolved factual
    disputes in granting summary judgment, we find that the district
    court properly granted summary judgment because Crosbys claims
    fail as a matter of law.

    In addition, because Crosby's motion for

    reconsideration does not demonstrate that his action was improperly


    dismissed, we find that the district court's denial of his Rule
    59(e) motion was not an abuse of discretion.2

    Accordingly, we af-

    firm both district court orders on the reasoning of the district


    court. See Crosby v. Lambert, No. CA-98-277-5-22JI (D.S.C. Mar. 24
    & May 11, 1999).

    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

    See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of


    Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
    2

    See United States v. Williams, 674 F.2d 310, 312 (4th Cir.

    1982).
    2

    You might also like