Filed: Aug. 07, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6317 BERNARD SOLTIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; J. W. THOMPSON, Warden; BRENDA BARRETT, Director of Health Services, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-166-1) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 7, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHI
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6317 BERNARD SOLTIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; J. W. THOMPSON, Warden; BRENDA BARRETT, Director of Health Services, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-166-1) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 7, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHIL..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6317
BERNARD SOLTIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; J. W. THOMPSON,
Warden; BRENDA BARRETT, Director of Health
Services,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis-
trict of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior
District Judge. (CA-95-166-1)
Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 7, 1996
Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bernard Soltis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1915(d) (1988) on his Bivens com-
plaint.* 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. Soltis v. Federal Bureau of
Prisons, No. CA-95-166-1 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 15, 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
*
See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971).
2