Case Name: Michael Brunell FLANIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Harley Lappin; Officer Smith; Lieutenant Broe; Bop; Lieutenant Negron; A. Joseph; D. Townes; R.E. Holt; T. Thomas; Vanessa Adams; Karen White; Harrell Watts; Dr. B. Rice, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-02
Citations: 332 F. App'x 11
Docket Number: No. 09-6536
Parties: Michael Brunell FLANIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Harley Lappin; Officer Smith; Lieutenant Broe; Bop; Lieutenant Negron; A. Joseph; D. Townes; R.E. Holt; T. Thomas; Vanessa Adams; Karen White; Harrell Watts; Dr. B. Rice, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 11–12

Head Matter:
Michael Brunell FLANIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Harley Lappin; Officer Smith; Lieutenant Broe; Bop; Lieutenant Negron; A. Joseph; D. Townes; R.E. Holt; T. Thomas; Vanessa Adams; Karen White; Harrell Watts; Dr. B. Rice, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-6536.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 26, 2009.
Decided: Sept. 2, 2009.
Michael Brunell Flanigan, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Brunell Flanigan appeals the district court's order dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to 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), without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Flanigan v. United States, No. 2:08-cv-00446-MSD-TEM (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 6, 2009 & entered Mar. 9, 2009). 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.