Case ID: f-appx_466/html/0265-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bennie A. MACK, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. DREW, in her individual capacity and in her official capacity as Warden for the Federal Correctional Institute at Bennettsville South Carolina; P. Jenkinson, in her individual capacity and in her official capacity as case Manager at FCI Bennettsville South Carolina; Ms. Stonebreaker, in her individual capacity as Camp Counsel- or at FCI Bennettsville South Carolina; R.E. Holt, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Regional Director for the Federal Bureau of Prisons; Yvonne Hinkson, in her individual capacity and in her official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-7229.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 9, 2012.
    Decided: Feb. 16, 2012.
    Bennie A. Mack, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Bennie A. Mack, Jr. appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions to reconsider and reinstating the court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Mack v. Drew, No. 9:09-cv-02891-JFA (D.S.C. Aug. 8, 2011); 2011 WL 2632610 (July 5, 2011); 2011 WL 765565 (Feb. 24, 2011). 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.