William Harrison v. Harrell Watts

Filing 920091104

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6696 WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON, a/k/a Allah-God Allah, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Kundalini Isa HARRELL WATTS, Administrator, National Inmate Appeals, Federal BOP; HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director, Federal BOP; KIMBERLEY WHITE, Regional Administrator, Inmate Appeals, Federal BOP, Mid-Atlantic Region; VANESSA P. ADAMS, Warden, Petersburg FCC, Federal BOP; JESUS M. HUERTAS, Supervisory Chaplain, Petersburg FCC, Federal BOP; MRS. BROWDER, Accoc. Chaplain, FCC Petersburg [medium] Federal BOP, Defendants Appellees. No. 09-7180 WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON, a/k/a Allah-God Allah, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Kundalini Isa HARRELL WATTS, Administrator, National Inmate Appeals, Federal BOP; HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director, Federal BOP; KIMBERLEY WHITE, Regional Administrator, Inmate Appeals, Federal BOP, Mid-Atlantic Region; VANESSA P. ADAMS, Warden, Petersburg FCC, Federal BOP; JESUS M. HUERTAS, Supervisory Chaplain, Petersburg FCC, Federal BOP; MRS. BROWDER, Accoc. Chaplain, FCC Petersburg [medium] Federal BOP, Defendants Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-01061-TSE-TCB) Submitted: September 24, 2009 Decided: November 4, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Henry Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. Monika L. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: William Harrison appeals the district court's order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss Harrison's complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and denying reconsideration of that order. error. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible Accordingly, we affirm the court's order granting the motion to With dismiss respect for to the the reasons district stated court's by the Defendants' district court. order denying reconsideration of that order, Harrison has forfeited appellate review of that order pursuant to 4th Cir. R. 34(b) and we therefore affirm that order. Harrison v. Watts, No. We we 1:06-cv-01061-TSE-TCB (E.D. Va. Mar. 26 & June 9, 2009). also deny Harrison's with oral motion to schedule because oral argument and as dispense argument the facts legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?