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)
12-7085•Nathaniel Singleton v. Warden Rivera
12-7085Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitNov 26, 2012
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7085
NATHANIEL SINGLETON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN RIVERA; ASSOCIATE WARDEN WEIR; ASSIST WITTMAN; DR.
PHILLIPES; COMMANDER GLENN; COMMANDER BRADY; MR. AGRLINE; D.
COUICK; OFFICER MS. VENTON; OFFICER MS. JOHNSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(1:10-cv-01909-RBH)
Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 26, 2012
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathaniel Singleton, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Nathaniel Singleton 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. See Singleton v. Warden Rivera, No. 1:10-cv-01909-RBH
(D.S.C. June 12, 2012). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.