Abdul-Aziz Muhammad v. Lappin et al

Filing 920100525

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7957 ABDUL-AZIZ RASHID MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff Appellant, v. HARLEY G. LAPPIN; HAROLD WATTS; K.M. WHITE; B. A. BLEDSOE; J. D. HILL; J. BUNTS; D. WILLIAMS; MARY BETH LICHTY; R. G. MCLEOD; J. BETLER; D. HEADY; STEVE HAMLING; P. BENDER; TERESA PUCKETT; DAVID BUCKINGHAM; ERICA MASTELLER-BORAM; R. PROFFITT, Lieutenant; DEBORAH LIVINGSTON, DHO; ALL UNKNOWN, unidentified individuals that may be determined during discovery; TRACY JONES, Nurse; JOHN DOE, JR., Desk Sergeant; JAKE DOE, Booking Officer; JANE DOE, #1 Nurse; JANE DOE, #2 Nurse; BETHANEY COX, Supervising Nurse; JOHNATHAN STEVENS, CMA; KIM DOE, Supervising Nurse; JOHN DOE, #2 Health Service Administrator; ANY OTHER UNKNOWN OFFICIALS, Defendants Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (2:07-cv-00018-REM-JSK) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 25, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Abdul-Aziz Rashid Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Abdul-Aziz court's order Rashid the Muhammad magistrate appeals judge's the district accepting recommendation and denying relief on Muhammad's complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). reversible error. We have reviewed the record and find no Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated Muhammad v. Lappin, No. 2:07-cv-00018We dispense with oral by the district court. REM-JSK (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 23, 2009). 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 3

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?