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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?