Case Name: Clarence T. FOX, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John J. LAMANNA, in his individual capacity; R. McLafferty, in his individual capacity; Brian Finnerty; Brian Gilmore, Defendants-Appellees, and Federal Bureau of Prisons, in its official capacity; Harley G. Lappin, in his individual capacity, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-26
Citations: 289 F. App'x 664
Docket Number: No. 08-6381
Parties: Clarence T. FOX, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John J. LAMANNA, in his individual capacity; R. McLafferty, in his individual capacity; Brian Finnerty; Brian Gilmore, Defendants—Appellees, and Federal Bureau of Prisons, in its official capacity; Harley G. Lappin, in his individual capacity, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 289
Pages: 664–664

Head Matter:
Clarence T. FOX, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John J. LAMANNA, in his individual capacity; R. McLafferty, in his individual capacity; Brian Finnerty; Brian Gilmore, Defendants—Appellees, and Federal Bureau of Prisons, in its official capacity; Harley G. Lappin, in his individual capacity, Defendants.
No. 08-6381.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 21, 2008.
Decided: Aug. 26, 2008.
Clarence T. Fox, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murder Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Clarence T. Fox, Jr., appeals the district court's order accepting the 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, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Fox v. LaManna, No. 2:06-cv-01785-GRA, 2008 WL 348849 (D.S.C. Feb. 7, 2008). 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.