Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06979/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06979-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A. F. Beeler
Appellee
Ronald K. Bilderbeck
Appellant
Mack Bonner
Appellee
R. Hall
Appellee
Peter Libero
Appellee
Ms. Paquarelle
Appellee
Richard Schott
Appellee
Samuel D. Stanley
Appellee
Patricia R. Stansberry
Appellee
Harrell Watts
Appellee
K. M. White
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6979

RONALD K. BILDERBECK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY; A. F. BEELER; PETER

LIBERO, Doctor; RICHARD SCHOTT; MACK BONNER,

Doctor; R. HALL, Doctor; HARRELL WATTS; MS.

PAQUARELLE; SAMUEL D. STANLEY, Doctor; K. M.

WHITE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior

District Judge. (5:06-ct-03106-H)

Submitted: November 6, 2007 Decided: November 19, 2007

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald K. Bilderbeck, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-6979 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/19/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
*

Bilderbeck also seeks on appeal to characterize his

negligence claims as state law claims over which the district court

had diversity jurisdiction, but because his pleadings in the

district court did not adequately assert this ground for relief we

do not consider it here. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. 

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ronald K. Bilderbeck appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his complaint asserting deliberate indifference

to medical needs and medical negligence pursuant to Bivens v. Six

Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388

(1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680

(2000).*

 We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Bilderbeck v. Stansberry, No. 5:06-ct-03106-H (E.D.N.C.

Dec. 19, 2006 & Mar. 26, 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: 07-6979 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/19/2007 Pg: 2 of 2