Case ID: f-appx_346/html/0915-01.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

Charles A. INKO-TARIAH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Harley G. LAPPIN, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; Art F. Beeler, Warden, Federal Medical Center, Butner; Mona Horton, Supervisor of Education, Federal Medical Center, Butner; Mary Ellis, Director of Nursing, Federal Medical Center, Butner, Defendants—Appellees. Charles A. Inko-Tariah, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Harley G. Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; Art F. Beeler, Warden, Federal Medical Center, Butner; Mona Horton, Supervisor of Education, Federal Medical Center, Butner; Mary Ellis, Director of Nursing, Federal Medical Center, Butner; Bureau of Prisons, Defendants—Appellees.
    Nos. 07-6242, 09-6889.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 8, 2009.
    Decided: Oct. 7, 2009.
    Charles A. Inko-Tariah, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles A. Inko-Tariah appeals the dismissal of his complaint alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and North Carolina’s Handicapped Persons Protection Act, N.C.G.S. § 168A-1, et seq. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Inko-Tariah v. Lappin, No. 5:05-ct-00585-H (E.D.N.C. filed Apr. 6, 2006 & entered Apr. 10, 2006; Jan. 30, 2007; Apr. 1, 2009). 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.