Richard Mears v. E. Esparza

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:08-cv-00115-JPB-DJJ. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998728066]. Mailed to: Richard Mears. [11-6234]

Appeal: 11-6234

Document: 16

Date Filed: 11/22/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6234

RICHARD DEAN MEARS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
E. G. ESPARZA, Acting Warden; ROBERT TRYBUS, SIS Lieutenant;
MR. ELZA, Captain; MS. KOVSCEK, SIS Lieutenant Tech.; MS.
JOHNSON, Lieutenant; KENNETH ADAMS, Unit Manager; MR.
ROBINSON, Education Supervisor; JAMES TURNER, Counselor;
LORI LINDSAY, Case Manager; LISA LITTLE, Case Manager;
RONALD W. RIKER, Section Chief, Designation & Sentence
Computation Center; PAMELA STEINER, Case Manager, FCI
Elkton,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins.
John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (2:08-cv-00115-JPB-DJJ)

Submitted:

November 17, 2011

Decided:

November 22, 2011

Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Dean Mears, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellees.

Appeal: 11-6234

Document: 16

Date Filed: 11/22/2011

Page: 2 of 3

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-6234

Document: 16

Date Filed: 11/22/2011

Page: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Richard Dean Mears appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on Mears’ motion for reconsideration of the denial of his
retaliation claim in his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388

(1971),

and

reconsideration. ∗
reversible error.

denying
We

have

Mears’
reviewed

subsequent
the

record

motion
and

find

for
no

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court.

Mears v. Esparza, No. 2:08-cv-00115-JPB-

DJJ (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 22, 2010 & Jan. 13, 2011).

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

∗

Mears’ appeal from these orders was interlocutory when
filed.
The district court’s subsequent entry of a final
judgment permits review of the order under the doctrine of
cumulative finality.
In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287–89 (4th
Cir. 2005); Equip. Fin. Group, Inc. v. Traverse Computer
Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347 (4th Cir. 1992).

3