Steven Graham v. L. Rosario

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:09-cv-01535-RMG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998595317]. Mailed to: Graham. [10-7683]

Appeal: 10-7683

Document: 14

Date Filed: 05/23/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7683

STEVEN ANTHONY GRAHAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
L. FUERTES ROSARIO, HSA MLP; HECTOR LOPEZ, Staff Physician;
R. BLOCKER, Clinical Director; J. MATTSON, MRA,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
UNITED STATES
PRISONS,

DEPARTMENT

OF

JUSTICE/FEDERAL

BUREAU

OF

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (3:09-cv-01535-RMG)

Submitted:

May 19, 2011

Before TRAXLER,
Judges.

Chief

Decided:

Judge,

and

AGEE

and

May 23, 2011

KEENAN,

Circuit

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Anthony Graham, Appellant
Bowens, Assistant United States

Pro Se.
Attorney,

Barbara Murcier
Columbia, South

Appeal: 10-7683

Document: 14

Date Filed: 05/23/2011

Page: 2 of 3

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 10-7683

Document: 14

Date Filed: 05/23/2011

Page: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Steven

Anthony

Graham

appeals

the

district

court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on his civil complaint, in which he alleged that
the

Defendants

violated

42

U.S.C.

§§ 1983,

1985

(2006)

violated his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. *
have

reviewed

the

record

and

find

no

reversible

and
We

error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

Graham v. Rosario, No. 3:09-cv-01535-RMG (D.S.C. filed

Nov. 9, 2010 & entered Nov. 10, 2010).

We dispense with oral

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

*

As correctly noted by the magistrate judge, these claims
are more properly considered under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

3