Case Name: Howell W. WOLTZ, TEP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FCI BECKLEY; FPC Beckley; John Grimes, Counselor; Beverly Smith, Case Manager; James Childress, Case & Unit Manager; M. Lewis, Unit Secretary; Gary Locke, Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-03
Citations: 470 F. App'x 143
Docket Number: No. 11-7470
Parties: Howell W. WOLTZ, TEP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FCI BECKLEY; FPC Beckley; John Grimes, Counselor; Beverly Smith, Case Manager; James Childress, Case & Unit Manager; M. Lewis, Unit Secretary; Gary Locke, Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 470
Pages: 143–143

Head Matter:
Howell W. WOLTZ, TEP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FCI BECKLEY; FPC Beckley; John Grimes, Counselor; Beverly Smith, Case Manager; James Childress, Case & Unit Manager; M. Lewis, Unit Secretary; Gary Locke, Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-7470.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 29, 2012.
Decided: April 3, 2012.
Howell W. Woltz, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Howell W. Woltz, TEP, appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) (2006) 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. See Woltz v. FCI Beckley, No. 5:10-cv-00487, 2011 WL 4916102 (S.D.W.Va. Oct. 17, 2011). 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.