Filed: Nov. 30, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7820 ELVIS JOSEPH AMARAME, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROBERT GATES, in his individual capacity; JOSEPH OWENS, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (6:07-cv-02775-HFF) Submitted: November 17, 2010 Decided: November 30, 2010 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by u
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7820 ELVIS JOSEPH AMARAME, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROBERT GATES, in his individual capacity; JOSEPH OWENS, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (6:07-cv-02775-HFF) Submitted: November 17, 2010 Decided: November 30, 2010 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by un..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7820
ELVIS JOSEPH AMARAME,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT GATES, in his individual capacity; JOSEPH OWENS, in
his individual capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(6:07-cv-02775-HFF)
Submitted: November 17, 2010 Decided: November 30, 2010
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elvis Joseph Amarame, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Elvis Joseph Amarame appeals the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
denying relief on 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 the district court’s order. 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