Case Name: Chuks Evaristus NWANERI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General; Janet Reno, Former U.S. Attorney General; William Barr, Attorney General; Richard D. Bennett, U.S. Attorney; Lynne Ann Battaglia, U.S. Attorney; Robert Harding, Assistant U.S. Attorney; Jan Miller, Assistant U.S. Attorney; Jeff Bielski, D.E.A. Agent, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-02-27
Citations: 30 F. App'x 108
Docket Number: No. 01-8009
Parties: Chuks Evaristus NWANERI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General; Janet Reno, Former U.S. Attorney General; William Barr, Attorney General; Richard D. Bennett, U.S. Attorney; Lynne Ann Battaglia, U.S. Attorney; Robert Harding, Assistant U.S. Attorney; Jan Miller, Assistant U.S. Attorney; Jeff Bielski, D.E.A. Agent, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 30
Pages: 108–108

Head Matter:
Chuks Evaristus NWANERI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General; Janet Reno, Former U.S. Attorney General; William Barr, Attorney General; Richard D. Bennett, U.S. Attorney; Lynne Ann Battaglia, U.S. Attorney; Robert Harding, Assistant U.S. Attorney; Jan Miller, Assistant U.S. Attorney; Jeff Bielski, D.E.A. Agent, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-8009.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 14, 2002.
Decided Feb. 27, 2002.
Chuks Evaristus Nwaneri, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Chuks Evaristus Nwaneri appeals from the district court's orders dismissing his action and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's memorandum and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Nwaneri v. Ashcroft, No. CA-01-3059JFM (D. Md. Oct. 22 & Nov. 8, 2001). 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.