Crescencio Perez-Perez v. M. Ray

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 9:16-cv-03574-CMC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000140534]. Mailed to: Crescencio Perez-Perez. [17-1578]

Appeal: 17-1578

Doc: 5

Filed: 08/21/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1578

CRESCENCIO PEREZ-PEREZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
M. E. RAY, Warden of FCI Estill, SC, as an individual and in his official capacity;
C. E. FLOYD, Warden of FCI Estill, SC, as an individual and in his official
capacity; E. RAIN WATER, A.H.S.A, as an individual and in her official capacity;
DR. JOSE HERNANDEZ, Medical Officer, as an individual and in his official
capacity; B. PARINA, M.D., as an individual and in his official capacity; DR.
ROSS RAMES, M.D., as an individual and in his official capacity; CAROLYN V.
RICKARDS, Regional Director, as an individual and in her official capacity;
WENDY J. ROAL, Administrator National Inmate Appeals, as an individual and in
her official capacity; FREDERICK GOULDING,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Beaufort. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (9:16-cv-03574-CMC)

Submitted: August 17, 2017

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Decided: August 21, 2017

Appeal: 17-1578

Doc: 5

Filed: 08/21/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Crescencio Perez-Perez, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 17-1578

Doc: 5

Filed: 08/21/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Crescencio Perez-Perez 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. Perez-Perez v. Ray, No. 9:16-cv03574-CMC (D.S.C. Mar. 27, 2017). 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