The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
05-6601•Fernando M. Smith v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 1971 . - 3 - PER…
05-6601Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 17, 2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6601
FERNANDO M. SMITH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; KATHLEEN HAWK
SAWYER, Director; HARLEY LAPPIN, Regional
Director; R. D. GLANCY, Regional Office;
HARRELL WATTS, National Appeals; GENERAL
COUNSEL FOR FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; BOBBY
SHEARIN, Warden; B. G. COMPTON, Warden; MR.
BOGDAN, Associate Warden; MRS. BRIGHT, Systems
Manager; MR. MCGORTY, Food Service
Administrator; MR. SERVOSS, Assistant Food
Service Administrator; MR. MOST, Assistant
Food Service Administrator; MR. GOLUB, Case
Manager; MS. GEYER, Case Manager; OFFICER
GAMBREL, Mailroom; OFFICER LIVENGOOD, Food
Service; OFFICER SHIFFER, Food Service;
OFFICER BITTINGER, Food Service,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-04-2021-8-AW)
Submitted: October 3, 2005 Decided: November 17, 2005
Before LUTTIG and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fernando M. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Larry David Adams, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 2 of 3 --
*Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Fernando M. Smith appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his Bivens* complaint. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. See Smith v. Federal
Bureau of Prisons, No. CA-04-2021-8-AW (D. Md. Feb. 28, 2005). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.