Frederick Banks v. Felicia Langford, No. 17-7380 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7380 FREDERICK BANKS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. FELICIA LANGFORD, Assistant US Attorney; JEFF SESSIONS, Attorney General; ROBERT CESSAR, Assistant US Attorney; DAVID HICTON, Assistant US Attorney; SOO SONG, Acting US Attorney; MARK HORNAK, Judge; CYNTHIA REED EDDY, Judge; MIKE POMPEO, Director, CIA; SEAN LANGFORD, Special Agent; ROBERT WERNER, Special Agent; TIMOTHY PIVNICHNY, Special Agent; SCOTT SMITH, Special Agent in Charge; CHRISTOPHER ASHER WRAY, Director, FBI; DR. HEATHER ROSS; ADRIAN ROE, Attorney; US ATTORNEY, Eastern District of NC, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:17-ct-03057-FL) Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 2, 2018 Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederick Hamilton Banks, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Frederick Banks appeals the district court’s order dismissing Banks’ complaint, in part, to the extent that Banks sought habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012). * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We thus affirm the district court’s judgment. See Banks v. Langford, No. 5:17-ct-03057-FL (E.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2017 & Oct. 26, 2017). 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 * To the extent Banks sought to assert a civil rights action, the district court denied Banks’ application to proceed without prepayment of fees and directed Banks to pay the full filing fee within 14 days of the court’s order, and ultimately dismissed Banks’ action when he failed to do so. Because Banks does not challenge this portion of the district court’s order, we need not review it on appeal. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.