Randall Conrad v. Federal Bureau of Prison
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cv-00133-GMG-JES Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999345854]. Mailed to: Randall Lee Conrad. [14-6134]
Appeal: 14-6134
Doc: 8
Filed: 04/29/2014
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6134
RANDALL LEE CONRAD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; DEPT. OF JUSTICE; R. A. PERDUE,
Warden; MR. CREASY, Counselor; MS. WILSON, Secretary; MRS.
THROPE, Officer,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
NUMEROUS
FCI
GILMER
EMPLOYEES,
Counselors, Case Managers, etc.,
Officers,
Secretaries,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg.
Gina M. Groh,
District Judge. (3:12-cv-00133-GMG-JES)
Submitted:
April 24, 2014
Decided:
April 29, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall Lee Conrad, Appellant Pro Se. Alan McGonigal, Assistant
United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Appeal: 14-6134
Doc: 8
Filed: 04/29/2014
Pg: 2 of 3
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 14-6134
Doc: 8
Filed: 04/29/2014
Pg: 3 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Randall Lee Conrad 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.
Conrad v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 3:12-cv-00133-
GMG-JES
(N.D.W.
Va.
Jan.
6,
2014).
We
dispense
with
oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3
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?