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)
09-6482•Antoine Leon Thurman v. United States Bureau of Prisons
09-6482Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 9, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6482
ANTOINE LEON THURMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
J. LOPEZ; J. THOMAS; FNU MOLINA; OTHER UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES OF
THE US BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. William M. Catoe, Jr., Magistrate
Judge. (8:06-cv-02458-WMC)
Submitted: February 26, 2010 Decided: March 9, 2010
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Dennis Bolt, BOLT LAW FIRM, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, R. Emery
Clark, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Antoine Leon Thurman appeals the magistrate judge’s
order∗
AFFIRMED
granting summary judgment for Defendants and dismissing
his civil action alleging claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. See Thurman v. United
States Bureau of Prisons, No. 8:06-cv-02458-WMC (D.S.C. Feb. 17,
2009). 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.
∗ The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.