Dwight A. Rudisill v. MERRICK GARLAND, Department of Justice, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6024
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.
No. 23-6133
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

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Magistrate Judge, in his Individual capacity; JERRY W. MILLER, Assistant United
States Attorney, in his Individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
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)
Submitted: July 25, 2023 Decided: July 28, 2023
Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dwight Alexander Rudisill, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --