Windsor v. Hudson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-6166
ANDREW WINDSOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
HENRY E. HUDSON, United States Attorney, in
his Official and Individual Capacity; NASH W.
SCHOOT, Assistant United States Attorney, in
his Official and Individual Capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 00-6356
ANDREW WINDSOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
HENRY E. HUDSON, United States Attorney, in
his Official and Individual Capacity; NASH W.
SCHOOT, Assistant United States Attorney, in
his Official and Individual Capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CA-99-468-3)
Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 4, 2000
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew Windsor, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Andrew Windsor seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
dismissing without prejudice his Bivens* complaint and denying his
motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We have reviewed the
record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommen-
dation of the magistrate judge to deny relief on the complaint and
find no reversible error in the district court’s conclusion that
Windsor’s claim was barred by the applicable statute of limita-
tions. Nor do we find any abuse of discretion in the district
court’s denial of Windsor’s Rule 60(b) motion. Accordingly, we
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Windsor v. Hud-
son, No. CA-99-468-3 (E.D. Va. Jan. 10 & Mar. 10, 2000). We dis-
pense 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.
AFFIRMED
*
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
3