Steven Byrd v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
Filing
402827326
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:08-cv-03540-TLW. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998351800] [09-7878]
Steven Byrd v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
Doc. 402827326
Case: 09-7878
Document: 12
Date Filed: 06/03/2010
Page: 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7878
STEVEN ALLEN BYRD, Plaintiff Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; MILDRED RIVERA, Warden; ZOLTAN R. VENDEL, Dr., Clinical Director; ANITA JONES, Camp Administrator, Defendants Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (2:08-cv-03540-TLW)
Submitted:
May 17, 2010
Decided:
June 3, 2010
Before KING and Circuit Judge.
SHEDD,
Circuit
Judges,
and
HAMILTON,
Senior
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Allen Byrd, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Dockets.Justia.com
Case: 09-7878
Document: 12
Date Filed: 06/03/2010
Page: 2
PER CURIAM: Steven accepting Defendants the Byrd appeals the district court's to which order grant the
magistrate
judge's on
recommendation Byrd's claims,
summary
judgment
magistrate judge construed as being filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). error. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the Byrd v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 2:08-cvSept. 25, 2009). We dispense with oral
district court. 03540-TLW (D.S.C.
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
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?