Case Name: Pascal Andre Pierre ETCHEBER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; United States, Defendants-Appellants, and David Espie, Counter Intelligence Special Agent, Defendant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-29
Citations: 583 F. App'x 271
Docket Number: No. 14-1338
Parties: Pascal Andre Pierre ETCHEBER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; United States, Defendants-Appellants, and David Espie, Counter Intelligence Special Agent, Defendant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 271–271

Head Matter:
Pascal Andre Pierre ETCHEBER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; United States, Defendants-Appellants, and David Espie, Counter Intelligence Special Agent, Defendant.
No. 14-1338.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 25, 2014.
Decided: Sept. 29, 2014.
Pascal Andre Etcheber, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pascal Andre Pierre Etcheber 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), and the Federal Tort Claims Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Etcheber v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, No. 2:13-cv-00752-JFA, 2014 WL 1319145 (D.S.C. Mar. 28, 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.