Case Name: Andrew WINDSOR, a/k/a Darryl Thomas, a/k/a Andrew Wilson, a/k/a John Carlton Harris, a/k/a Joseph Williams, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B.G. COMPTON; Dejesue; David Roff, Health Services Administrator; C.M. Strickland; AW; Pham, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-04
Citations: 98 F. App'x 954
Docket Number: No. 04-6452
Parties: Andrew WINDSOR, a/k/a Darryl Thomas, a/k/a Andrew Wilson, a/k/a John Carlton Harris, a/k/a Joseph Williams, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. B.G. COMPTON; Dejesue; David Roff, Health Services Administrator; C.M. Strickland; AW; Pham, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 98
Pages: 954–955

Head Matter:
Andrew WINDSOR, a/k/a Darryl Thomas, a/k/a Andrew Wilson, a/k/a John Carlton Harris, a/k/a Joseph Williams, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. B.G. COMPTON; Dejesue; David Roff, Health Services Administrator; C.M. Strickland; AW; Pham, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-6452.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 27, 2004.
Decided June 4, 2004.
Andrew Windsor, Appellant pro se.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Andrew Windsor appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the district court properly construed as a 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), under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Windsor v. Compton, No. CA-04-65-SGW (W.D.Va. Feb. 11, 2004). We dispense with oi'al 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