Lemoyne Veney v. Tamera Fine

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to amend complaint [999752167-2]; denying Motion to strike district court's order [999752168-2]; denying Motion to disqualify the district court judge [999754857-2]; denying Motions to appoint/assign counsel [999754861-2], [999754863-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999754865-2]; denying Motion for production of communication data [999754866-2]. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-03965-RDB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999786748]. Mailed to: Lemoyne Veney. [16-6070]

Appeal: 16-6070

Doc: 21

Filed: 04/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6070

LEMOYNE VENEY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
V.
TAMERA LYNN FINE; MARK WALTER
BRENDAN HURSON; ROBERT SPELKE,

CROOKS;

MANISHA

GARNER;

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-03965-RDB)

Submitted:

March 29, 2016

Decided:

April 1, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lemoyne Veney, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6070

Doc: 21

Filed: 04/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Lemoyne Vesey 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

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
find

no

reasons

reversible
stated

by

error.
the

Agents

of

Fed.

Bureau

of

We have reviewed the record and
Accordingly,

district

court.

we

affirm

Veney

1:15-cv-03965-RDB (D. Md. Jan. 8, 2016).

v.

for

the

Fine,

No.

We also deny Veney’s

motions to amend the complaint, to strike the district court’s
order,

to

counsel,

disqualify
and

documents.
legal
before

for

district

production

court
of

judge,

transcripts

to

assign

and

other

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

the

the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

2