John Frilando v. Director Timothy Johnson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999456810-2], denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999461198-2] Originating case number: 4:13-cv-02931-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999538678]. Mailed to: Frilando. [14-7492]

Appeal: 14-7492

Doc: 21

Filed: 03/03/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7492

JOHN A. FRILANDO, a/k/a John Frilando, a/k/a John Anthony
Frilando,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR TIMOTHY JOHNSON, Acting Warden; ASSOCIATE WARDEN
LANKFORD; UNIT MANAGER R. KEYS; COUNSELOR T. NAYLOR; SIS
LIEUTENANT J. STIVERS; LIEUTENANT GOODYEAR; LIEUTENANT F.
HILL; LIEUTENANT HANKERSON; CAPTAIN E. RAYBURN; FREDRICK
GRAINGER,
Correction
Officer;
COUNSELOR
THRASHER;
SIS
LIEUTENANT J. PATTERSON,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
David C. Norton, District Judge.
(4:13-cv-02931-DCN)

Submitted:

February 25, 2015

Decided:

March 3, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Anthony Frilando, Appellant
Bowens, Assistant United States
Carolina, for Appellees.

Pro Se.
Attorney,

Barbara Murcier
Columbia, South

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7492

Doc: 21

Filed: 03/03/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
John A. Frilando 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.

Frilando v. Johnson, No. 4:13-cv-02931-DCN (D.S.C. Sept.

26, 2014).
counsel.
legal
before

We deny Frilando’s motions for the appointment of
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

2