Filed: Mar. 02, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7495 JUAN VALDEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; HARRELL WATTS; HARLEY G. LAPPIN; BOBBY SHEARIN; MICHAEL R. MUIR; JEFFREY BANEY; JOHN SHOCKEY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 04-2225-DKC) Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 2, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Ci
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7495 JUAN VALDEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; HARRELL WATTS; HARLEY G. LAPPIN; BOBBY SHEARIN; MICHAEL R. MUIR; JEFFREY BANEY; JOHN SHOCKEY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA- 04-2225-DKC) Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 2, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Cir..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7495
JUAN VALDEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; HARRELL WATTS;
HARLEY G. LAPPIN; BOBBY SHEARIN; MICHAEL R.
MUIR; JEFFREY BANEY; JOHN SHOCKEY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-
04-2225-DKC)
Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 2, 2006
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Juan Valdez, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, United
States Attorney, James A. Frederick, Assistant United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Juan Valdez appeals the district court’s order denying
his Bivens* action. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Valdez v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. CA-
04-2225-DKC (D. Md. Aug. 4, 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
*
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Bureau of
Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971).
- 2 -