Case Name: Nathaniel SINGLETON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Food Service Officer Mr. NELSON; Food Service Mr. Taylor; Food Service Mr. Craze; Food Service Ms. Johnson; Food Service Ms. Venton; Administrative Food Service Brown; Administrative Food Service Argline, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-22
Citations: 589 F. App'x 86
Docket Number: No. 14-7139
Parties: Nathaniel SINGLETON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Food Service Officer Mr. NELSON; Food Service Mr. Taylor; Food Service Mr. Craze; Food Service Ms. Johnson; Food Service Ms. Venton; Administrative Food Service Brown; Administrative Food Service Argline, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 589
Pages: 86–86

Head Matter:
Nathaniel SINGLETON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Food Service Officer Mr. NELSON; Food Service Mr. Taylor; Food Service Mr. Craze; Food Service Ms. Johnson; Food Service Ms. Venton; Administrative Food Service Brown; Administrative Food Service Argline, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-7139.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 18, 2014.
Decided: Dec. 22, 2014.
Nathaniel Singleton, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Singleton 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, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Singleton v. Nelson, No. l:12-cv-02985-RBH, 2014 WL 3687348 (D.S.C. July 24, 2014). 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.