Court Opinion

ID: 9368149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-02 21:00:46.846729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:05.814716
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6641      Doc: 12         Filed: 02/01/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6641

        NAFIS AKEEM-ALIM ABDULLAH-MALIK, a/k/a Akeem Abdullah Malik,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        MECKLENBURG COUNTY JAIL ADMINISTRATOR; PARKER, Major; EDDIE
        CATHY, Sheriff; BILL BEAN, Sheriff; DOES; MIKE MILLER, District Attorney;
        KEVIN TOLSON, Sheriff; LORI FIELDS, Warrant Field Agent; JOHN AND JANE
        DOES, Unknown Agents,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (3:21-cv-00667-MR)

        Submitted: November 30, 2022                                      Decided: February 1, 2023

        Before DIAZ and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Nafis Akeem-Alim Abdullah-Malik, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6641      Doc: 12        Filed: 02/01/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Nafis Akeem-Alim Abdullah-Malik appeals the district court’s order and judgment

        dismissing his action without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no

        reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Abdullah-Malik v. Mecklenburg Cty. Jail Adm’r,

        No. 3:21-cv-00667-MR (W.D.N.C. May 5, 2022). We deny Abdullah-Malik’s motions for

        stay and disclosure.    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