Case Name: Nathaniel SINGLETON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden RIVERA; Associate Warden Weir; Assist Wittman; Dr. Phillipes; Commander Glenn; Commander Brady; Mr. Agrline; D. Couick; Officer Ms. Venton; Officer Ms. Johnson, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-26
Citations: 489 F. App'x 727
Docket Number: No. 12-7085
Parties: Nathaniel SINGLETON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden RIVERA; Associate Warden Weir; Assist Wittman; Dr. Phillipes; Commander Glenn; Commander Brady; Mr. Agrline; D. Couick; Officer Ms. Venton; Officer Ms. Johnson, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 489
Pages: 727–728

Head Matter:
Nathaniel SINGLETON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden RIVERA; Associate Warden Weir; Assist Wittman; Dr. Phillipes; Commander Glenn; Commander Brady; Mr. Agrline; D. Couick; Officer Ms. Venton; Officer Ms. Johnson, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-7085.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 20, 2012.
Decided: Nov. 26, 2012.
Nathaniel Singleton, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Singleton 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. See Singleton v. Warden Rivera, No. 1:10-cv-01909-RBH (D.S.C. June 12, 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.