Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Yagman v. Johns, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views3 pages
    This document is a 3 sentence unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Stephen Yagman on a complaint filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in Yagman v. Johns, No. 5:08-ct-03089-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 29, 2010). The Court dispensed with oral argument as the facts, legal contentions, and materials before the court adequately presented the issues such that argument would

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-10-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 10-6633

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a 3 sentence unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Stephen Yagman on a complaint filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in Yagman v. Johns, No. 5:08-ct-03089-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 29, 2010). The Court dispensed with oral argument as the facts, legal contentions, and materials before the court adequately presented the issues such that argument would

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    5 views3 pages

    Yagman v. Johns, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a 3 sentence unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirming the district court's denial of relief to Stephen Yagman on a complaint filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics. The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's ruling for the reasons stated in Yagman v. Johns, No. 5:08-ct-03089-FL (E.D.N.C. Mar. 29, 2010). The Court dispensed with oral argument as the facts, legal contentions, and materials before the court adequately presented the issues such that argument would

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 10-6633

    STEPHEN YAGMAN,
    Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    TRACY JOHNS; ARTHUR BEELER; HARLEY LAPPIN; KIM WHITE; KERRY
    MOTTERN; MITCHELL SPRINKLE; DERICK PHILLIPS,
    Defendants Appellees,
    and
    TEN UNKNOWN NAMED FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISON OFFICERS AND/OR
    EMPLOYEES,
    Defendant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Louise W. Flanagan,
    Chief District Judge. (5:08-ct-03089-FL)

    Submitted:

    September 28, 2010

    Decided:

    October 5, 2010

    Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Stephen Yagman, Appellant Pro Se.


    Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Stephen

    Yagman

    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.

    Yagman v. Johns, No. 5:08-ct-03089-FL (E.D.N.C.

    Mar. 29, 2010).


    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the


    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like