Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07957/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07957-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7957

ABDUL-AZIZ RASHID MUHAMMAD,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

HARLEY G. LAPPIN; HAROLD WATTS; K.M. WHITE; B. A. BLEDSOE; J. D. 

HILL; J. BUNTS; D. WILLIAMS; MARY BETH LICHTY; R. G. MCLEOD; J. 

BETLER; D. HEADY; STEVE HAMLING; P. BENDER; TERESA PUCKETT; 

DAVID BUCKINGHAM; ERICA MASTELLER-BORAM; R. PROFFITT, 

Lieutenant; DEBORAH LIVINGSTON, DHO; ALL UNKNOWN, unidentified 

individuals that may be determined during discovery; TRACY 

JONES, Nurse; JOHN DOE, JR., Desk Sergeant; JAKE DOE, Booking 

Officer; JANE DOE, #1 Nurse; JANE DOE, #2 Nurse; BETHANEY COX, 

Supervising Nurse; JOHNATHAN STEVENS, CMA; KIM DOE, Supervising 

Nurse; JOHN DOE, #2 Health Service Administrator; ANY OTHER 

UNKNOWN OFFICIALS,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert E. Maxwell, Senior

District Judge. (2:07-cv-00018-REM-JSK)

Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 25, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Abdul-Aziz Rashid Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se.

Appeal: 09-7957 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/25/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7957 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/25/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Abdul-Aziz Rashid Muhammad appeals the district 

court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation 

and denying relief on Muhammad’s 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. Muhammad v. Lappin, No. 2:07-cv-00018-

REM-JSK (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 23, 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

Appeal: 09-7957 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/25/2010 Pg: 3 of 3