Opinion
23-6024 23-6133
07-28-2023
DWIGHT A. RUDISILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MERRICK GARLAND, Department of Justice, Attorney General, in his Official capacity; DAVID ALAN BROWN, SR., Assistant United States Attorney, in his Individual capacity; UNKNOWN UNITED STATES MARSHALS, United States Marshal, in their Individual capacities; LACY H. THORNBURG, Retired District Court Judge, in his Individual capacity; MAX O. COGBURN, JR., United States Magistrate Judge, in his Individual capacity; JERRY W. MILLER, Assistant United States Attorney, in his Individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees. DWIGHT A. RUDISILL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MERRICK GARLAND, Department of Justice, Attorney General, in his Official capacity; DAVID ALAN BROWN, SR., Assistant United States Attorney, in his Individual capacity; UNKNOWN UNITED STATES MARSHALS, United States Marshal, in their Individual capacities; LACY H. THORNBURG, Retired District Court Judge, in his Individual capacity; MAX O. COGBURN, JR., United States Magistrate Judge, in his Individual capacity; JERRY W. MILLER, Assistant United States Attorney, in his Individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Dwight Alexander Rudisill, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: July 25, 2023
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cv-00227-MR)
Dwight Alexander Rudisill, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Dwight Alexander Rudisill appeals the district court's orders requiring that he pay the filing fee for his action and dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's fee order, and we affirm its dismissal order under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Rudisill v. Garland, No. 1:22-cv-00227-MR (W.D. N.C. Dec. 9, 2022; Jan. 24, 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