Case ID: f-appx_119/html/0558-01.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

Pete SMITH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. William L. OSTEEN, Defendant—Appellee.
    No. 04-7744.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 13, 2005.
    Decided Jan. 21, 2005.
    Pete Smith, Appellant pro se.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Pete Smith appeals the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and dismissing his action filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 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 Smith v. Osteen, No. CA-04-494-1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 1, 2004). 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