Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

96-6532 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-6532 Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 18, 1996
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 103 F.3d 116 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Darryl ASMAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robin CUFFY, Director Food Services, FCI Morgantown; Leslie R. Bilotti, Cook Super Visor, FCI Morgantown; Brenda Barrett, Health Services Director, FCI Morgantown; William Thompson, Warde
More

103 F.3d 116

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Darryl ASMAR, Plaintiff--Appellant,
v.
Robin CUFFY, Director Food Services, FCI Morgantown; Leslie
R. Bilotti, Cook Super Visor, FCI Morgantown; Brenda
Barrett, Health Services Director, FCI Morgantown; William
Thompson, Warden, FCI Morgantown, Defendants--Appellees.

No. 96-6532.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Dec. 18, 1996.
Submitted: December 12, 1996.
Decided: December 18, 1996.

Darryl Asmar, Appellant Pro Se. Patrick Michael Flatley, Assistant United States Attorney, Daniel W. Dickinson, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.

N.D.W.Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his complaint brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Asmar v. Cuffy, No. CA-95-73-1 (N.D.W.Va. Mar. 22, 1996). 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