Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
13-7659•Randall Lee Conrad v. WARDEN DREW; OFFICER SMITH, Kitchen Staff
13-7659Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit28.01.2014
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7659
RANDALL LEE CONRAD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN DREW; OFFICER SMITH, Kitchen Staff,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
FCI BENNETTSVILLE,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. R. Bryan Harwell, District
Judge. (5:12-cv-01288-RBH)
Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: January 28, 2014
Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall Lee Conrad, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Randall Lee Conrad 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. Conrad v. Drew, No. 5:12-cv-01288-RBH (D.S.C. Aug. 12,
2013). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.