Case ID: f-appx_25/html/0184-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Timothy C. TUCKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 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.
    No. 01-7514.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2001.
    Decided Jan. 18, 2002.
    Timothy C. Tucker, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Timothy C. Tucker appeals the district court’s 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, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Tucker v. Hambrick, No. CA-01-408-2 (E.D.Va. Aug. 7, 2001). 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.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.