Case Name: Ronald K. BILDERBECK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-19
Citations: 254 F. App'x 231
Docket Number: No. 07-6979
Parties: Ronald K. BILDERBECK, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. 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.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 254
Pages: 231–231

Head Matter:
Ronald K. BILDERBECK, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. 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.
No. 07-6979.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 6, 2007.
Decided: Nov. 19, 2007.
Ronald K. Bilderbeck, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
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, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (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.
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.