Filed: Aug. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6345 SUPREME RAHEEM ACKBAR, a/k/a Ronald Gary, #275886, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PATRICIA S. CONNOR, Clerk; JAMES N. ISHIDA, Secretary; RICHARD H. SEWELL, Deputy Clerk; KAREN STUMP, Deputy Clerk, US Court of Appeals; RICHARD M. GERGEL; THOMAS E. ROGERS, III, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (4:18-cv-031
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6345 SUPREME RAHEEM ACKBAR, a/k/a Ronald Gary, #275886, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. PATRICIA S. CONNOR, Clerk; JAMES N. ISHIDA, Secretary; RICHARD H. SEWELL, Deputy Clerk; KAREN STUMP, Deputy Clerk, US Court of Appeals; RICHARD M. GERGEL; THOMAS E. ROGERS, III, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (4:18-cv-0318..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6345
SUPREME RAHEEM ACKBAR, a/k/a Ronald Gary, #275886,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PATRICIA S. CONNOR, Clerk; JAMES N. ISHIDA, Secretary; RICHARD H.
SEWELL, Deputy Clerk; KAREN STUMP, Deputy Clerk, US Court of Appeals;
RICHARD M. GERGEL; THOMAS E. ROGERS, III,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (4:18-cv-03181-RMG)
Submitted: July 17, 2019 Decided: August 26, 2019
Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Supreme Raheem Ackbar, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Supreme Raheem Ackbar appeals the district court’s orders accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971),
and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Ackbar v. Connor,
No. 4:18-cv-03181-RMG (D.S.C. Feb. 26 & Mar. 12, 2019). 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