Case Name: Harry WALKER, a/k/a Musa Aquil, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Morgan E. SCOTT, Jr.; Brett Braumbaugh, Postal Inspector; Virginia Police Department, South Boston; Mr. Grant, New York District Attorney in charge of case 552-95; R.S. Pulliam, Major; United States of America, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-18
Citations: 203 F. App'x 447
Docket Number: No. 06-6966
Parties: Harry WALKER, a/k/a Musa Aquil, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Morgan E. SCOTT, Jr.; Brett Braum-baugh, Postal Inspector; Virginia Police Department, South Boston; Mr. Grant, New York District Attorney in charge of case 552-95; R.S. Pulliam, Major; United States of America, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 447–448

Head Matter:
Harry WALKER, a/k/a Musa Aquil, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Morgan E. SCOTT, Jr.; Brett Braum-baugh, Postal Inspector; Virginia Police Department, South Boston; Mr. Grant, New York District Attorney in charge of case 552-95; R.S. Pulliam, Major; United States of America, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-6966.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 25, 2006.
Decided: Oct. 18, 2006.
Harry Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Bugbee Winn, Office of the United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia; Carlene Booth Johnson, Perry Law Firm, PC, Dill-wyn, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Harry Walker appeals the district court's order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) and 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. Walker v. Scott, No. 7:05-cv-00010-jct, 2006 WL 1288315 (W.D.Va. May 4, 2006). Walker's motions for general relief are denied. 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.