Howell Woltz v. Thomas Scarantino

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-cv-00095 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998925005]. Mailed to: Howell Woltz. [12-6619]

Download PDF
Appeal: 12-6619 Doc: 14 Filed: 08/27/2012 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6619 HOWELL W. WOLTZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THOMAS SCARANTINO, Camp Administrator; THOMAS CLIFTON, a/k/a Clifton; LAURA TRUMP; UNKNOWN R & D/MAIL CLERK(S); UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JOHN GRIMES, Counselor; DAVID A. BERKEBILE, Warden of FCI/FCP Beckley; BEVERLY SMITH, Case Manager; OFFICER TREADWAY, Commissary Department of FCI/FCP Beckley; MEDICAL OFFICER WHITE; MICHAEL CUTRIGHT; DEBBIE STEVENS, Supervising Attorney; KEVIN CANTERBERRY, Counselor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:10-cv-00095) Submitted: August 22, 2012 Decided: August 27, 2012 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Howell W. Woltz, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 12-6619 Doc: 14 Filed: 08/27/2012 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Howell W. Woltz appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Woltz v. Scarantino, No. 5:10-cv-00095 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 31, 2011). facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the 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?