Case Name: Donald Louis COLBERT, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mildred RIVERIA; Anita Jones; Rikantas Majauskas, MD; Harrell Watts, Administrator, Defendants-Appellees, and Harry Leppin, a/k/a Harley G. Lappin, Director of FBOP, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-26
Citations: 367 F. App'x 458
Docket Number: No. 09-8155
Parties: Donald Louis COLBERT, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Mildred RIVERIA; Anita Jones; Rikantas Majauskas, MD; Harrell Watts, Administrator, Defendants—Appellees, and Harry Leppin, a/k/a Harley G. Lappin, Director of FBOP, Defendant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 367
Pages: 458–459

Head Matter:
Donald Louis COLBERT, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Mildred RIVERIA; Anita Jones; Rikantas Majauskas, MD; Harrell Watts, Administrator, Defendants—Appellees, and Harry Leppin, a/k/a Harley G. Lappin, Director of FBOP, Defendant.
No. 09-8155.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 18, 2010.
Decided: Feb. 26, 2010.
Donald Louis Colbert, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donald Louis Colbert, 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, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Colbert v. Riveria, No. 2:09-cv-00848-CMC, 2009 WL 3417758 (D.S.C. Oct. 21, 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.
AFFIRMED.