Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06172/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06172-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 16-6172

BRYAN KEITH RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

MR. SMITH, Associate Warden of Prison Operations; MR. 

RUSSELL A. PERDUE, Warden of the Entire Prison; MR. YARBER, 

Lieutenant of the SIS Department; MR. YEAGER, A Federal 

Employee at the Camp; MS. PARK-DAVISON, Unit Manager of 

Building A.; MR. WEAVER, Health Service Administrator of 

the Prison; MR. CLARK, Education Supervisor at the Prison; 

MR. BECK, Prison Education Specialist; MS. THOMPKINS, An 

Educational/Teacher at the Prison; COUNSELOR C TAYLOR, 

Counsel for Unit A-3 at the Prison; DOES 1 THROUGH 8, BOP 

Employee,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, 

District Judge. (2:14-cv-00064-JPB-MJA)

Submitted: August 26, 2016 Decided: September 13, 2016

Before KING, SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Appeal: 16-6172 Doc: 15 Filed: 09/13/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Bryan Keith Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Erin K. Reisenweber, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, 

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6172 Doc: 15 Filed: 09/13/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Bryan Keith Richardson appeals the district court’s order

adopting the report and 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 substantially for the reasons 

stated by the district court. Richardson v. Smith, No. 

2:14-cv-00064-JPB-MJA (N.D. W. Va. Jan. 20, 2016). In addition, 

we find that Richardson’s requests for discovery were properly 

denied because the evidence sought for discovery would not have 

created a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat 

summary judgment. See Ingle ex re. Ingle v. Yelton, 439 F.3d 

191, 195 (4th Cir. 2006). We deny Richardson’s motion for

appropriate relief and dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 16-6172 Doc: 15 Filed: 09/13/2016 Pg: 3 of 3