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)
99-7236•Danny Ray Shafer v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 1971 . 2 PER…
99-7236Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 1, 2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-7236
DANNY RAY SHAFER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MARSHAL ROBINSON; GARLIN GOCHENOUR; THOMAS
HODGES; DUANE CAMRON; GUY L. ALGER; WILLIAM
PROCTOR; ALLEN MILLER; STEPHEN U. BAER; EDWARD
CHILDRESS; MARGARET COIN; DEANA SIMS; W. R.
GOOD; ROBERT P. CROUCH, JR.; JANET RENO;
STEVEN DEWALT; RICARDO BRADFORD,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CA-99-292-7)
Submitted: July 27, 2000 Decided: August 1, 2000
Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danny Ray Shafer, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
* See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
2
PER CURIAM:
Danny Ray Shafer appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion for summary judgment, which he filed after the district
court dismissed his Bivens * action without prejudice and denied his
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. Because our review of the record
discloses that Shafer’s appeal is without merit, we affirm the
district court’s order denying Shafer’s motion for summary judgment
on the reasoning of the district court. See Shafer v. Robinson,
No. CA-99-292-7 (W.D. Va. Aug. 13, 1999). We deny Shafer’s motion
for summary judgment in this Court and his request that we order
him released from federal prison. 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.