The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
04-7570•Keenan M. Williams v. James Farrior, personally
04-7570Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 24, 2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7570
KEENAN M. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JAMES FARRIOR, personally and in his official
capacity; FREDY WHEELER, personally and in his
official capacity; DARYL HOOKS, personally and
in his official capacity; JEFF GEORGE,
personally and in his official capacity;
CHRISTINA BARGLOFF, personally and in her
official capacity; J. NORWOOD, personally and
in his official capacity; JOSEPH BROOKS,
personally and in his official capacity,
BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION - PETERSBURG;
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-03-519-1)
Submitted: January 28, 2005 Decided: February 24, 2005
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Keenan M. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Carl Barghaan, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Keenan M. Williams appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to Defendants in Williams’ action under
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403
U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Williams v. Farrior, No. CA-03-519-1 (E.D. Va.
Sept. 20, 2004). 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.