Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07508/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07508-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7508

STEVEN D. CARR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RAY HOLT, Regional Director of Bureau of Prisons; HARRELL WATTS,

Administrator; JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden of FCI Edgefield; L.

FUERTES ROSARIO, Health Services Administrator at FCI Edgefield;

E. FAYTONG, Physicians Assistant; L. GUEVARH, Assistant Medical

Services Administrator; A. SAHA, Physicians Assistant; J. LOPEZ,

MLP at FCI Edgefield; R. BLOCKER, MLP at FCI Edgefield; J.

SERRANE; A. WILLIAMS, X-Ray Technician; NFN TURNER, Food Service

Administrator; A. STACKS, Assistant Food Service Administrator;

NFN MAHONES, Unit Manager; NFN BOLTIN, Counselor; NFN VINNING,

Lieutenant; NFN LOVEGROVE, Food Service Forman; THOMAS C. DAVIS,

Food Service Supervisor at FCI Edgefield, 

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.

(6:06-cv-02333-TLW)

Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 6, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven D. Carr, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens,

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7508 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/06/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Steven D. Carr 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 for the reasons stated by the district

court. Carr v. Holt, No. 6:06-cv-02333-TLW (D.S.C. Sept. 25,

2007). 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

Appeal: 07-7508 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/06/2008 Pg: 2 of 2