Court Opinion

ID: 9382181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 21:01:48.562922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:37.464317
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6277      Doc: 16         Filed: 03/23/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6277

        LARONE FREDERICK ELIJAH,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; C. MALONE,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:20-ct-03173-BO)

        Submitted: March 21, 2023                                         Decided: March 23, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Larone Frederick Elijah, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Coull Wilson, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
        for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6277     Doc: 16        Filed: 03/23/2023   Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Larone Frederick Elijah appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his

        complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

        Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b),

        2671-80. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

        affirm. Elijah v. United States, No. 5:20-ct-03173-BO (E.D.N.C. Feb. 8, 2022). 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