Bobby Ingram v. Mildred Rivera

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999190402-2] Originating case number: 9:12-cv-02407-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999282257]. Mailed to: Bobby Ingram. [13-7334]

Download PDF
Appeal: 13-7334 Doc: 14 Filed: 01/23/2014 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7334 BOBBY L. INGRAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MILDRED L. RIVERA, Warden; LARRY WHITMAN, AW(P); D. PHILLIP, MD; T. MIDDLETON, Mid-Level Provider; E. REED, MD Medical Officer; J. GLENN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, District Judge. (9:12-cv-02407-DCN) Submitted: January 21, 2014 Decided: January 23, 2014 Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bobby L. Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 13-7334 Doc: 14 Filed: 01/23/2014 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Bobby L. Ingram 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 Ingram v. Rivera, No. 9:12-cv-02407-DCN (D.S.C. July 31, 2013). We dispense contentions We deny Ingram’s motion for appointment of counsel. with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not 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?