Filed: Apr. 26, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7503 KEVIN MCDONALD, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. USP HAZELTON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:10-cv-00277-JRS) Submitted: April 21, 2011 Decided: April 26, 2011 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin McDonald, Appellant Pro Se. Unpub
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7503 KEVIN MCDONALD, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. USP HAZELTON, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:10-cv-00277-JRS) Submitted: April 21, 2011 Decided: April 26, 2011 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin McDonald, Appellant Pro Se. Unpubl..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7503
KEVIN MCDONALD,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
USP HAZELTON,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:10-cv-00277-JRS)
Submitted: April 21, 2011 Decided: April 26, 2011
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kevin McDonald, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin McDonald appeals the district court’s order
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. McDonald v. USP Hazelton, No. 3:10-cv-00277-JRS
(E.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2010). We deny McDonald’s motions for a
transcript and for summary judgment. 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