Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Tucker v. Hambrick, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    This document is a summary of a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Timothy Tucker filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents against numerous defendants. The district court denied relief on Tucker's complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. The Court also denied Tucker's motion for appointment of counsel.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-01-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-7514

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a summary of a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Timothy Tucker filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents against numerous defendants. The district court denied relief on Tucker's complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. The Court also denied Tucker's motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

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

    Tucker v. Hambrick, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a summary of a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Timothy Tucker filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents against numerous defendants. The district court denied relief on Tucker's complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding no reversible error. The Court also denied Tucker's motion for appointment of counsel.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 01-7514

    TIMOTHY C. TUCKER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MARGARET HAMBRICK; R. L. MATHEWS; TOM WOOTEN;
    STEPHEN DEWALT; GENE HARRIS; CATHY TUCKER; MR.
    AARON; RODNEY WYRICK; MS. VIVIAN; KENNETH
    KEPLEY; CURTIS HISE; DAVID OLIVER; CARLOS
    ASCENSIO; MS. APONTE; SURENDRA RISHI; SUHASINI
    SHAW; VALERIE KEMPER; MARVIN SLUSSER; MS.
    RIGHT; CARALYN SUMLER; JOHN RUSSELL; MR. QUINTANA; MR. GERALD; THOMAS CUSUCCIO; LINDSY
    NORTHERTON; JASON PAYNE; MR. HARRIS,
    Defendants - Appellees,
    and
    KATHLEEN HAWK SAWYER,
    Defendant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-01-408-2)

    Submitted:

    December 19, 2001

    Decided:

    January 18, 2002

    Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Timothy C. Tucker, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Timothy C. Tucker appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint, which
    the court properly construed as filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown
    Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

    We

    have reviewed the record and the district courts opinion and find
    no reversible error.

    Accordingly, although we grant leave to pro-

    ceed in forma pauperis, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of


    the district court.
    Va. Aug. 7, 2001).

    See Tucker v. Hambrick, No. CA-01-408-2 (E.D.


    We deny the motion for appointment of counsel.

    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

    You might also like