Case Name: Jovan Cornelius SIMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L/CPL Kevin PAIGE, Schp; Trooper Bucky Geddings, Schp; L/CPL Mark Jennings, Schp; Agent H. Eric Cohoon, ATF; South Carolina Department of Public Safety, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-24
Citations: 610 F. App'x 269
Docket Number: No. 15-6446
Parties: Jovan Cornelius SIMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L/CPL Kevin PAIGE, Schp; Trooper Bucky Geddings, Schp; L/CPL Mark Jennings, Schp; Agent H. Eric Cohoon, ATF; South Carolina Department of Public Safety, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 610
Pages: 269–270

Head Matter:
Jovan Cornelius SIMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L/CPL Kevin PAIGE, Schp; Trooper Bucky Geddings, Schp; L/CPL Mark Jennings, Schp; Agent H. Eric Cohoon, ATF; South Carolina Department of Public Safety, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-6446.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 21, 2015.
Decided: July 24, 2015.
Jovan Cornelius Simon, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Bass Lohr, Howell, Gibson & Hughes, PA, Beaufort, South Carolina; Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jovan Cornelius Simon appeals the magistrate judge's text order denying his motion to compel and the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 408 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Simon v. Paige, No. 9:13—cv-03025-RMG, 2015 WL 1145781 (D.S.C. Dec. 5, 2014; Mar. 13, 2015). We 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.