Calvin S. Wedington v. Unnamed Deputy U.S. Marshal

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-ct-03301-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999957082]. Mailed to: Calvin Scott Wedington. [16-6679]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6679 Doc: 15 Filed: 10/28/2016 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6679 CALVIN S. WEDINGTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNNAMED DEPUTY U.S. MARSHAL, First; UNNAMED DEPUTY U.S. MARSHAL, Second; LORETTA E. LYNCH; KENNY ATKINSON; USA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:15-ct-03301-BO) Submitted: October 14, 2016 Decided: October 28, 2016 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin S. Wedington, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-6679 Doc: 15 Filed: 10/28/2016 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Calvin Scott Wedington appeals from the district court’s order dismissing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) (2012) his civil action filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). On appeal, Wedington fails to explain how the district court erred in its dismissal decision. Wedington review of the court’s order. thus has forfeited appellate See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir. 2009); Williams (4th Cir. forma v. 2004). pauperis Giant Food Accordingly, and affirm Inc., we the 370 grant F.3d leave district 423, to court’s 430 proceed n.4 in judgment. We deny Wedington’s motions to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal contentions are before this and court argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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?