Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06252/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06252-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6252

CHARLES LANGHAM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; LT. R. WRIGHT; ANGELA DUNBAR; 

OFFICER STOOTS; OFFICER MALONE; OFFICER BOYD; PHYSICIAN 

ASSISTANT SCOTT; MR. DUVALL, Psychologist; LIEUTENANT CHASE; 

TINA SCOTT; RENE DAUBON,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:14-ct-03143-BO)

Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: November 9, 2016

Before TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 16-6252 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/09/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Charles Langham, Appellant Pro Se. Robert J. Dodson, Special 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6252 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/09/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Charles Langham appeals the district court’s order granting 

summary judgment to Defendants and denying relief on his 

complaint raising claims pursuant to the Federal Torts Claim Act 

(FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680 (2012), and Bivens v. 

Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 

388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, although we grant Langham leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s order. 

Langham v. United States, No. 5:14-ct-03143-BO (E.D.N.C. filed 

Jan. 27, 2016 & entered Jan. 28, 2016). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 16-6252 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/09/2016 Pg: 3 of 3