Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06482/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06482-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Lopez
Appellee
FNU Molina
Appellee
Other Unknown Employees of the US Bureau of Prisons
Appellee
J. Thomas
Appellee
Antoine Leon Thurman
Appellant
United States Bureau of Prisons
Appellee
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6482

ANTOINE LEON THURMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; 

J. LOPEZ; J. THOMAS; FNU MOLINA; OTHER UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES OF 

THE US BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. William M. Catoe, Jr., Magistrate

Judge. (8:06-cv-02458-WMC)

Submitted: February 26, 2010 Decided: March 9, 2010

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Dennis Bolt, BOLT LAW FIRM, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, R. Emery 

Clark, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-6482 Doc: 28 Filed: 03/09/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Antoine Leon Thurman appeals the magistrate judge’s

order∗

AFFIRMED

granting summary judgment for Defendants and dismissing 

his civil action alleging claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown 

Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 

(1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. See Thurman v. United 

States Bureau of Prisons, No. 8:06-cv-02458-WMC (D.S.C. Feb. 17, 

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.

 ∗ The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).

Appeal: 09-6482 Doc: 28 Filed: 03/09/2010 Pg: 2 of 2