UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6157
JEFFREY COHEN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
and
DAMIEN RILEY; CHRISTOPHER PALMER; KENNETH BAINES; MARC
BARBER; FAISAL MAPANGALA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ROD ROSENSTEIN, US Attorney; HARRY GRUBER, Asst. US
Attorney; JOYCE MCDONALD, Asst. US Attorney; LEAH BRESSACK,
Asst. US Attorney; BRANDIS MARSH, Asst. US Attorney; MATTHEW
HOFF, Asst. US Attorney; RACHEL YASSER, Asst. US Attorney,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:14-cv-03996-WDQ)
Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 21, 2015
Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Cohen, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Brian Cohen appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing without prejudice his Bivens 1 complaint against seven
federal prosecutors, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2012), and
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. 2
Among other reasons, the district court dismissed Cohen’s
complaint because proceeding with Cohen’s civil claim for
violation of his speedy trial rights would necessarily implicate
the validity of any conviction or sentence resulting from his
still-pending criminal case. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S.
641, 646 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm. 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
1
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
2
We conclude that the district court’s orders are final and
appealable as no amendment to the complaint could cure at least
one of the defects identified by the district court. See Domino
Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064,
1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
3