Steven Dixon Prentice v. Barry Edward

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-ct-03006-H Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000107636]. Mailed to: appellant. [17-6230]

Appeal: 17-6230

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/27/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6230

STEVEN DIXON PRENTICE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BARRY EDWARDS, Unit Manager - FTC Oklahoma; HSA GRISMER, Health
Services Administrator - FCI El Reno; H.A. LEDEZMA, Warden (former) - FCI El
Reno; JASON SICKLER, Legal Counsel - BOP South Central Regional Office;
MR. COMMACHO, Unit Manager (former) - FCI Butner; ANGELA DUNBAR,
Warden (former) - Butner Medium II; JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden - Butner
Medium II; ANDREA RICHARDSON, Case Manager,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
BUREAU OF PRISONS; ADRIAN TOWE, Unit Team Counselor - FCI Butner,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:15-ct-03006-H)

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: June 27, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 17-6230

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/27/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

Steven Dixon Prentice, Appellant Pro Se. Christina Ann Kelley, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 17-6230

Doc: 10

Filed: 06/27/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Steven Dixon Prentice appeals the district court’s order 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. Prentice v.
Edwards, No. 5:15-ct-03006-H (E.D.N.C. Feb. 14, 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