Court Opinion

ID: 9404402
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 21:03:41.159999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:13.660101
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1386      Doc: 5        Filed: 06/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-1386

        ANGELO GALLOWAY,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        MARK S. DAVIS; REBECCA B. SMITH,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Elizabeth W. Hanes, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00185-EWH-DEM)

        Submitted: June 15, 2023                                            Decided: June 21, 2023

        Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Angelo Galloway, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1386      Doc: 5        Filed: 06/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Angelo Galloway appeals the district court’s orders dismissing under 28 U.S.C.

        § 1915(e)(2)(B) his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

        Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

        motion to alter or amend judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

        error in the court’s determination that Galloway’s action was barred by judicial immunity.

        Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders on this basis. Galloway v. Davis,

        No. 2:22-cv-00185-EWH-DEM (E.D. Va. Oct. 28, 2022 & Mar. 27, 2023). We dispense

        with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

        materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                     AFFIRMED

                                                    2