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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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