Filed: Dec. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7139 NATHANIEL SINGLETON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FOOD SERVICE OFFICER MR. NELSON; FOOD SERVICE MR. TAYLOR; FOOD SERVICE MR. CRAZE; FOOD SERVICE MS. JOHNSON; FOOD SERVICE MS. VENTON; ADMINISTRATIVE FOOD SERVICE BROWN; ADMINISTRATIVE FOOD SERVICE ARGLINE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (1:12-cv-02985-RBH) S
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7139 NATHANIEL SINGLETON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FOOD SERVICE OFFICER MR. NELSON; FOOD SERVICE MR. TAYLOR; FOOD SERVICE MR. CRAZE; FOOD SERVICE MS. JOHNSON; FOOD SERVICE MS. VENTON; ADMINISTRATIVE FOOD SERVICE BROWN; ADMINISTRATIVE FOOD SERVICE ARGLINE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (1:12-cv-02985-RBH) Su..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7139
NATHANIEL SINGLETON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FOOD SERVICE OFFICER MR. NELSON; FOOD SERVICE MR. TAYLOR;
FOOD SERVICE MR. CRAZE; FOOD SERVICE MS. JOHNSON; FOOD
SERVICE MS. VENTON; ADMINISTRATIVE FOOD SERVICE BROWN;
ADMINISTRATIVE FOOD SERVICE ARGLINE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(1:12-cv-02985-RBH)
Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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. Singleton v. Nelson, No. 1:12-cv-02985-RBH (D.S.C. July
24, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
2