Benjamin H. Laneave v. United States of America

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7441
BENJAMIN H. LANEAVE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF
PRISONS, an agency of the United States
Department of Justice; REHABILITATION
SERVICES, INCORPORATED II, a corporation;
MALIK A. BRICE, individually and in his
official capacity; FREDERICK W. WILLIAMS,
individually and in his official capacity;
AMISHA MCNEILL, individually and in her
official capacity; LINDA MOORE, individually
and in her official capacity as Community
Corrections Manager; REDWOOD TOXICOLOGY
LABORATORY, a commercial enterprise; WAYNE
ROSS, individually and doing business as
Redwood Toxicology Laboratory; ROBERT A.
MOUNT, individually and doing business as
Redwood Toxicology Laboratory; ROY L.
MORRISON, individually and in his official
capacity as Warden, FCI Elkton; MARK A. BEZY,
individually and in his official capacity as
Warden, FCI Elkton; NELSON APONTE,
individually and in his official capacities as
Associate Warden and Acting Warden, FCI
Elkton; DOES I - L, being fictitious
designations for certain unknown, identifiable
persons serving as employees, agents,
servants, officials or representatives of the
United States Government, individually and in
their official capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District
Judge. (3:05-cv-00329-REP)
Submitted: January 31, 2007 Decided: February 21, 2007
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin H. LaNeave, Appellant Pro Se. Robert P. McIntosh, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, Donald Cameron
Beck, Jr., MORRIS & MORRIS, Richmond, Virginia, Andrew Joseph
Terrell, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, Washington, D.C., for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

*We intend and discern no prejudice to LaNeave by denying his
motion. We have fully considered the “formal” brief he tendered to
the Clerk, but have construed it as his informal brief. Further,
because the district court transmitted its complete record to this
court for our use on appeal, our consideration of LaNeave’s
proposed appendix is unnecessary.
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin H. LaNeave seeks to appeal the district court’s
order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate
judge and dismissing his civil action. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. See LaNeave v. United States, No.
3:05-cv-00329-REP (E.D. Va. June 15, 2006). Additionally, we deny
as unnecessary LaNeave’s request to file a formal brief and
appendix in this case. * 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 --