Darrell DeBrew v. Brandon Brook

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-ct-03198-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998919378].. [12-6583]

Appeal: 12-6583

Doc: 15

Filed: 08/20/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6583

DARRELL J. DEBREW,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRANDON BROOKS; P. COLLINS; LT. DODSON; C. EICHENLAUB; MRS.
FAUCETT; GLENN O. FORD; CANDICE GREGORY; TRACY JOHNS;
CAMILLE JOHNSON; HARLEY LAPPIN; LT. RODENBAUGH; HARRELL
WATTS; K. M. WHITE; JOHN DOE, Mail Room Employee; HANK
PAULSON; JOHN DOE, Treasury Department Employee,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:10-ct-03198-D)

Submitted:

August 16, 2012

Decided:

August 20, 2012

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrell James DeBrew, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6583

Doc: 15

Filed: 08/20/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Darrell

James

DeBrew

appeals

the

district

court’s

orders denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens
v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403
U.S.

388

(1971),

and

denying

have

his

reviewed

subsequent
the

and

for

reconsideration.

We

reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm substantially ∗ for the

reasons stated by the district court.

record

motion
find

DeBrew v. Brooks, No.

5:10-ct-03198-D (E.D.N.C. July 22, 2011 & Jan. 24, 2012).
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

no

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

∗

Although we decline to find that DeBrew’s challenges to
his disciplinary convictions are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), we have reviewed the merits of DeBrew’s
claims and agree that he fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.

2