Case Name: Jamal MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Vincent B. LISSI, individually, and in his official capacity as an agent or employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigations; John C. Bevington, individually, and in his official capacity as an agent or employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-15
Citations: 120 F. App'x 520
Docket Number: No. 04-7565
Parties: Jamal MITCHELL, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Vincent B. LISSI, individually, and in his official capacity as an agent or employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigations; John C. Bevington, individually, and in his official capacity as an agent or employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 120
Pages: 520–520

Head Matter:
Jamal MITCHELL, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Vincent B. LISSI, individually, and in his official capacity as an agent or employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigations; John C. Bevington, individually, and in his official capacity as an agent or employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-7565.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 9, 2005.
Decided Feb. 15, 2005.
Jamal Mitchell, Appellant pro se. Patrick Bernard Kernan, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Jamal Mitchell appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to Defendants in his action 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 find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Mitchell v. Lissi, No. CA-03-1190-1 (E.D.Va. Aug. 30, 2004). 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