Paul Goist v. Charles Samuels

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 9:14-cv-04036-RMG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999803089]. Mailed to: P. Goist. [15-7368]

Appeal: 15-7368

Doc: 32

Filed: 04/25/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7368

PAUL B. GOIST, a/k/a Paul Benjamin Goist,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES SAMUELS, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons,
in his official and individual capacity; REAR ADMIRAL NEWTON
R. KENDIG, M.D., In his Official and Individual Capacity;
HARRELL WATTS, In his Official and Individual Capacity; SOUTH
EAST REGIONAL DIRECTOR, SERO; JOHN AND JANE DOES, Statutory
Agent Officer, In their Official and Individual Capacity;
WARDEN CRUZ, FCI Williamsburg, In her Official and Individual
Capacity; ESTATE OF VICTOR LORANTH; WILLIAM RIGNEY, PA/MD,
In his Official and Individual Capacity,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge.
(9:14-cv-04036-RMG)

Submitted:

April 21, 2016

Decided:

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

April 25, 2016

Appeal: 15-7368

Doc: 32

Filed: 04/25/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Paul Benjamin Goist, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-7368

Doc: 32

Filed: 04/25/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Paul B. Goist appeals the district court’s orders 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), and denying his
motion for reconsideration.

We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court.

Goist v. Samuels, No. 9:14-cv-04036-RMG

(D.S.C. July 22, 2015 & Aug. 25, 2015).

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