Case Name: Donnie Speller MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Timothy M. SMITH, Garage Foreman, Individually and in Official Capacities; J. Howard Losiewicz, Discipline Hearing Officer, Individually and in Official Capacities; Rich Shook, Health Service Administrator, Individually and in Official Capacities, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-28
Citations: 235 F. App'x 197
Docket Number: No. 06-7936
Parties: Donnie Speller MOORE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Timothy M. SMITH, Garage Foreman, Individually and in Official Capacities; J. Howard Losiewicz, Discipline Hearing Officer, Individually and in Official Capacities; Rich Shook, Health Service Administrator, Individually and in Official Capacities, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 197–198

Head Matter:
Donnie Speller MOORE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Timothy M. SMITH, Garage Foreman, Individually and in Official Capacities; J. Howard Losiewicz, Discipline Hearing Officer, Individually and in Official Capacities; Rich Shook, Health Service Administrator, Individually and in Official Capacities, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 06-7936.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 23, 2007.
Decided: Aug. 28, 2007.
Donnie Speller Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Ariana Wright Arnold, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Donnie Speller Moore appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 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) action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Moore v. Smith, 1:06-cv-00911-JFM (D.Md. Oct. 31, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu merit would not aid in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.