Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    William Cloud v. United States, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which William Roosevelt Cloud appealed the district court's denial of relief on his Bivens complaint. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed the district court's decision to deny Cloud relief for the reasons stated in its opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    William Cloud v. United States, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which William Roosevelt Cloud appealed the district court's denial of relief on his Bivens complaint. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed the district court's decision to deny Cloud relief for the reasons stated in its opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-03-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-6047

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case in which William Roosevelt Cloud appealed the district court's denial of relief on his Bivens complaint. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed the district court's decision to deny Cloud relief for the reasons stated in its opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    13 views2 pages

    William Cloud v. United States, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which William Roosevelt Cloud appealed the district court's denial of relief on his Bivens complaint. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed the district court's decision to deny Cloud relief for the reasons stated in its opinion. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-6047

    WILLIAM ROOSEVELT CLOUD,


    Petitioner Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; KURT W. MEYERS; MICHAEL SAVAGE;
    KENNETH RANDALL; FRANK D. WHITNEY,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
    Robert J. Conrad,
    Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-00775-RJC)

    Submitted:

    March 26, 2013

    Decided:

    March 29, 2013

    Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    William Roosevelt Cloud, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    William Roosevelt Cloud appeals the district courts
    order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens
    v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403
    U.S.

    388

    (1971).

    reversible error.
    by

    the

    district

    We

    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    argument

    adequately

    find

    no

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated


    court.

    Cloud

    v.

    United

    3:12-cv-00775-RJC (W.D.N.C. Dec. 28, 2012).


    oral

    and

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    and

    materials

    States,

    No.

    We dispense with

    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are
    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like