Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Michael Schulze v. Dwight Ratley, 12-7771 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-7771 Visitors: 15
Filed: Apr. 02, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7771 MICHAEL F. SCHULZE, Plaintiff – Appellant, and GERARDO GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. DWIGHT C. RATLEY; SHANNON D. DAVIS; GERALD M. DEL RE; JAMES A. EDWARDS; PAMELA D. MAJOR; RAYMOND A. SIMMONS; DARLENE DREW; UNKNOWN OFFICERS, of the Federal Prisons; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; J. COMSTOCK; ANDERSON, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Joseph F
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 12-7771


MICHAEL F. SCHULZE,

                 Plaintiff – Appellant,

          and

GERARDO GONZALEZ,

                Plaintiff,

          v.

DWIGHT C. RATLEY; SHANNON D. DAVIS; GERALD M. DEL RE; JAMES
A. EDWARDS; PAMELA D. MAJOR; RAYMOND A. SIMMONS; DARLENE
DREW; UNKNOWN OFFICERS, of the Federal Prisons; FEDERAL
BUREAU OF PRISONS; J. COMSTOCK; ANDERSON,

                Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.       Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.,
District Judge. (6:11-cv-00941-JFA)


Submitted:   March 19, 2013                 Decided:   April 2, 2013


Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Michael F. Schulze, Appellant Pro Se.      Marshall Prince, II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.




                                2
PER CURIAM:

             Michael F. Schulze appeals the district court’s order

accepting     the   recommendation    of      the   magistrate      judge    and

granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this action

filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.

Bureau of Narcotics, 
403 U.S. 388
 (1971), and the court’s order

denying reconsideration.       We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error.       Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court.             Schulze v. Ratley, No. 6:11-cv-

00941-JFA (D.S.C. Sept. 11, 2012; Oct. 10, 2012).                   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




                                      3

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