Narrative Opinion Summary
Kalvin Marshall appeals the district court's denial of his motion to reopen a Bivens action that was dismissed in April 2015. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision based on its reasoning. The case reference is Marshall v. Payne, No. 3:13—cv-00286-JRS (E.D. Va. Sept. 19, 2016). The court decided against oral argument, noting that the facts and legal issues were sufficiently clear in the submitted materials. The appeal is affirmed, citing Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics as precedent. Unpublished opinions are clarified as non-binding precedent in this circuit.
Legal Issues Addressed
Necessity of Oral Argumentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that oral argument was unnecessary as the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the written submissions.
Reasoning: The court decided against oral argument, noting that the facts and legal issues were sufficiently clear in the submitted materials.
Precedential Value of Unpublished Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court clarifies that unpublished opinions do not serve as binding precedent within the circuit.
Reasoning: Unpublished opinions are clarified as non-binding precedent in this circuit.
Reopening a Bivens Actionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision to deny reopening the Bivens action, indicating that no reversible error was found in the district court's reasoning.
Reasoning: Kalvin Marshall appeals the district court's denial of his motion to reopen a Bivens action that was dismissed in April 2015. The appellate court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, affirming the district court's decision based on its reasoning.