Case Name: Lloyd Eugene BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jose A. SERANNO; Rex Blocker; Richard Frickey; Lousia Rosario; Gary Favour, Nurse; United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina; Attorney General of the United States, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-04
Citations: 238 F. App'x 992
Docket Number: No. 07-6094
Parties: Lloyd Eugene BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jose A. SERANNO; Rex Blocker; Richard Frickey; Lousia Rosario; Gary Favour, Nurse; United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina; Attorney General of the United States, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 238
Pages: 992–992

Head Matter:
Lloyd Eugene BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jose A. SERANNO; Rex Blocker; Richard Frickey; Lousia Rosario; Gary Favour, Nurse; United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina; Attorney General of the United States, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-6094.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 29, 2007.
Decided: Sept. 4, 2007.
Lloyd Eugene Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murder Bowens, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lloyd Eugene Brown appeals the district court's order 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. Brown v. Seranno, No. 2:05-cv-03342-RBH (D.S.C. filed Nov. 30, 2006 & entered Dec. 1, 2006). 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.