Case Name: Juan BERMEA-CEPEDA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHAPLAIN CHARTIER, FCI Edgefield; Associate Chaplain Mims, FCI Edgefield; Director Holt, Southeast Regional Director; Administrator Harrell Watts, Administrator National Inmate Appeals; Warden, FCI Edgefield, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-06
Citations: 487 F. App'x 78
Docket Number: No. 12-7108
Parties: Juan BERMEA-CEPEDA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHAPLAIN CHARTIER, FCI Edgefield; Associate Chaplain Mims, FCI Edgefield; Director Holt, Southeast Regional Director; Administrator Harrell Watts, Administrator National Inmate Appeals; Warden, FCI Edgefield, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 487
Pages: 78–78

Head Matter:
Juan BERMEA-CEPEDA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHAPLAIN CHARTIER, FCI Edgefield; Associate Chaplain Mims, FCI Edgefield; Director Holt, Southeast Regional Director; Administrator Harrell Watts, Administrator National Inmate Appeals; Warden, FCI Edgefield, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-7108.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 2, 2012.
Decided: Nov. 6, 2012.
Juan Bermea-Cepeda, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Juan Bermea-Cepeda 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. Bermea-Cepeda v. Chartier, 2012 WL 2366454 (D.S.C. June 21, 2012). 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.