Bilderbeck v. Stansberry

Filing 920071119


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6979 RONALD K. BILDERBECK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY; A. F. BEELER; PETER LIBERO, Doctor; RICHARD SCHOTT; MACK BONNER, Doctor; R. HALL, Doctor; HARRELL WATTS; MS. PAQUARELLE; SAMUEL D. STANLEY, Doctor; K. M. WHITE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:06-ct-03106-H) Submitted: November 6, 2007 Decided: November 19, 2007 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald K. Bilderbeck, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronald K. Bilderbeck appeals the district court's order denying relief on his complaint asserting deliberate indifference to medical needs and medical negligence pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2671-2680 (2000).* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bilderbeck v. Stansberry, No. 5:06-ct-03106-H (E.D.N.C. We dispense with oral argument Dec. 19, 2006 & Mar. 26, 2007). because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED Bilderbeck also seeks on appeal to characterize his negligence claims as state law claims over which the district court had diversity jurisdiction, but because his pleadings in the district court did not adequately assert this ground for relief we do not consider it here. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. - 2 - *

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?