Frankie LordMaster v. Ivan Davi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [999665713-2], denying Motion for other relief [999665710-2], denying Motion for other relief [999665702-2], denying Motion for other relief [999665696-2], denying Motion for other relief [999665691-2], denying Motion for other relief [999658485-2], denying Motion for other relief [999658484-2] Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00319-LMB-MSN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999684703]. Mailed to: Frankie Lordmaster. [15-6933]

Appeal: 15-6933

Doc: 28

Filed: 10/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6933

FRANKIE JAE LORDMASTER, a/k/a Jason Robert Goldader,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
IVAN DARNELL DAVIS, Magistrate - E.D. Va., Alexandria Div.;
JAMES C. CACHERIS, Dist. Judge - E.D. Va., Alexandria Div.;
MR. FLOYD; MR. NIEMEYER; MR. SHEDD; ANDREW DOWNS, Clerk U.S. Sup. Ct.; SCOTT S. HARRIS, Clerk - U.S. Sup. Ct.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00319-LMB-MSN)

Submitted:

October 20, 2015

Decided:

October 23, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frankie Jae LordMaster, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6933

Doc: 28

Filed: 10/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Frankie Jae LordMaster appeals the district court’s order
dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012) his complaint filed
pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
find no reversible error.
motions

for

access

of

We have reviewed the record and

Accordingly, we deny LordMaster’s

counsel

to

the

original

record,

for

consideration of Supreme Court Rule 19, to stay judgment, to
join appeals and parties, and to further develop facts, and we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

LordMaster

v. Davis, No. 1:15-cv-00319-LMB-MSN (E.D. Va. May 15, 2015).
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

2