Bryan Richardson v. Mr. Smith


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for appropriate relief [999816293-2]. Originating case number: 2:14-cv-00064-JPB-MJA. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999927981]. Mailed to: Bryan Richardson. [16-6172]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6172 Doc: 15 Filed: 09/13/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6172 BRYAN KEITH RICHARDSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MR. SMITH, Associate Warden of Prison Operations; MR. RUSSELL A. PERDUE, Warden of the Entire Prison; MR. YARBER, Lieutenant of the SIS Department; MR. YEAGER, A Federal Employee at the Camp; MS. PARK-DAVISON, Unit Manager of Building A.; MR. WEAVER, Health Service Administrator of the Prison; MR. CLARK, Education Supervisor at the Prison; MR. BECK, Prison Education Specialist; MS. THOMPKINS, An Educational/Teacher at the Prison; COUNSELOR C TAYLOR, Counsel for Unit A-3 at the Prison; DOES 1 THROUGH 8, BOP Employee, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (2:14-cv-00064-JPB-MJA) Submitted: August 26, 2016 Decided: Before KING, SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. September 13, 2016 Appeal: 16-6172 Doc: 15 Filed: 09/13/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 Bryan Keith Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Erin K. Reisenweber, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 16-6172 Doc: 15 Filed: 09/13/2016 Pg: 3 of 3 PER CURIAM: Bryan Keith Richardson appeals the district court’s order adopting the report and 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). error. stated We have reviewed the record and find no reversible Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons by the district court. Richardson v. Smith, 2:14-cv-00064-JPB-MJA (N.D. W. Va. Jan. 20, 2016). No. In addition, we find that Richardson’s requests for discovery were properly denied because the evidence sought for discovery would not have created a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. 191, 195 (4th See Ingle ex re. Ingle v. Yelton, 439 F.3d Cir. 2006). We deny Richardson’s motion for appropriate relief and dispense with oral argument because the facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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?