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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?