Case Name: John D. STRASSINI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mr. DODRILL; Doctor Friedman; Mrs. Harliss; Mr. Elli; Warden Beeler; Ms. Elsea; Mr. Lunsford; Julia Clemens; Mr. Sweder; Ken Davis; Doctor Shimm; Doctor Bush; Jon Crogan, Captain; Manager James, S.I.S.; Lieutenant Smith; Lieutenant Moscar; Ms. Maynard, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-04-01
Citations: 32 F. App'x 78
Docket Number: No. 02-6194
Parties: John D. STRASSINI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mr. DODRILL; Doctor Friedman; Mrs. Harliss; Mr. Elli; Warden Beeler; Ms. Elsea; Mr. Lunsford; Julia Clemens; Mr. Sweder; Ken Davis; Doctor Shimm; Doctor Bush; Jon Crogan, Captain; Manager James, S.I.S.; Lieutenant Smith; Lieutenant Moscar; Ms. Maynard, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 32
Pages: 78–78

Head Matter:
John D. STRASSINI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mr. DODRILL; Doctor Friedman; Mrs. Harliss; Mr. Elli; Warden Beeler; Ms. Elsea; Mr. Lunsford; Julia Clemens; Mr. Sweder; Ken Davis; Doctor Shimm; Doctor Bush; Jon Crogan, Captain; Manager James, S.I.S.; Lieutenant Smith; Lieutenant Moscar; Ms. Maynard, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-6194.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 21, 2002.
Decided April 1, 2002.
John D. Strassini, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NEIMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
John D. Strassini appeals the district court's order denying relief on his action 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 the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Strassini v. Dodrill, No. CA-00-759-5-H (E.D.N.C. Jan. 16, 2002). 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.