Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Windsor v. Schott, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Andrew Windsor filed a Bivens complaint against two defendants in district court, which dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Windsor appealed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding no reversible error in the reasoning that the district court provided. As the Fourth Circuit's decision was unpublished, it does not constitute binding precedent.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-02-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-7574

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Andrew Windsor filed a Bivens complaint against two defendants in district court, which dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Windsor appealed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding no reversible error in the reasoning that the district court provided. As the Fourth Circuit's decision was unpublished, it does not constitute binding precedent.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views2 pages

    Windsor v. Schott, 4th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Andrew Windsor filed a Bivens complaint against two defendants in district court, which dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Windsor appealed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding no reversible error in the reasoning that the district court provided. As the Fourth Circuit's decision was unpublished, it does not constitute binding precedent.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 97-7574

    ANDREW WINDSOR,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    NASH W. SCHOTT, A.U.S.A.; DREWRY B. HUTCHESON,
    JR., Esquire,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior
    District Judge. (CA-97-516-3)
    Submitted:

    January 22, 1998

    Decided:

    February 4, 1998

    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Andrew Windsor, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his Bivens* complaint. We have reviewed the
    record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible
    error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district
    court. Windsor v. Schott, No. CA-97-516-3 (E.D. Va. Sept. 29,
    1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of


    Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
    2

    Fed. Bureau of

    You might also like