Filed: Mar. 17, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8316 ADELSON MICHEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RAYMOND A. COSTABILE, Medical Doctor at Virginia Ambulatory Surgery Center; KATHLEEN HWANG, Medical Doctor at Virginia Ambulatory Surgery Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:08-cv-00533-gec-mfu) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 17, 2009 Before MO
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8316 ADELSON MICHEL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RAYMOND A. COSTABILE, Medical Doctor at Virginia Ambulatory Surgery Center; KATHLEEN HWANG, Medical Doctor at Virginia Ambulatory Surgery Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:08-cv-00533-gec-mfu) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 17, 2009 Before MOT..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8316
ADELSON MICHEL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RAYMOND A. COSTABILE, Medical Doctor at Virginia Ambulatory
Surgery Center; KATHLEEN HWANG, Medical Doctor at Virginia
Ambulatory Surgery Center,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District
Judge. (7:08-cv-00533-gec-mfu)
Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 17, 2009
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adelson Michel, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adelson Michel appeals the district court’s order
dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006) his complaint filed
pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. See Michel v. Costabile,
No. 7:08-cv-00533-gec-mfu (W.D. Va. Oct. 8, 2008). 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
2