Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Raphael Mendez v. Federal Correctional Institution, Butner, Nc Sally Johnson Kelvin McBride John T. Hadden, Warden, 92-6922 (1992)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 92-6922 Visitors: 15
Filed: Dec. 17, 1992
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 981 F.2d 1251 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Raphael MENDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, BUTNER, NC; Sally Johnson; Kelvin McBride; John T. Hadden, Warden, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-6922. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submi
More

981 F.2d 1251

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Raphael MENDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, BUTNER, NC; Sally
Johnson; Kelvin McBride; John T. Hadden, Warden,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-6922.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 30, 1992
Decided: December 17, 1992

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

Raphael Mendez, Appellant Pro Se.

Linda Kaye Teal, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, for Appellees.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Raphael Mendez appeals from the district court's order denying relief under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 402 U.S. 388 (1971). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Mendez v. FCI Butner, No. CA-91-383-BR (E.D.N.C. July 16, 1992). 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer