Hazel v. Lappin

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided May 28, 2010

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2010-05-28

Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2011

Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2010-05-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 *344Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

¶2Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

¶3Bobby Hazel appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to 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 Hazel v. Lappin, No. 2:09-cv-00070-REM, 2010 WL 56034 (N.D.W.Va. Jan. 6, 2010). We deny Hazel’s motion for a stay. 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.

¶4AFFIRMED.