Filed: May 28, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6202 BOBBY HAZEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director, United States Bureau of Prisons; JOE DRIVER; CAPTAIN BOYLES, Administrator; JORGES VAZQUEZ, Doctor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (2:09-cv-00070-REM) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEME
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6202 BOBBY HAZEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director, United States Bureau of Prisons; JOE DRIVER; CAPTAIN BOYLES, Administrator; JORGES VAZQUEZ, Doctor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (2:09-cv-00070-REM) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEY..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6202
BOBBY HAZEL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director, United States Bureau of Prisons;
JOE DRIVER; CAPTAIN BOYLES, Administrator; JORGES VAZQUEZ,
Doctor,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cv-00070-REM)
Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bobby Hazel, Appellant Pro Se. Rita R. Valdrini, Assistant
United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Hazel 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 Hazel v. Lappin, No. 2:09-cv-00070-REM (N.D.W. Va.
Jan. 6, 2010). We deny Hazel’s motion for a stay. 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