Case Name: Carl Blake BROCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Catherine BOWMAN, Radiology Tech, Defendant-Appellee, and Donald Peitrisko, SIS Lieutenant John Doe 4; John Doe 2, Correctional Officer; Marshall Shearer, Correctional Officer John Doe 1; Brett Friend, Registered Nurse; M. Azumah, Mid Level Practioner; Patricia Corbin, Physician's Assistant; Jorge S. Vasquez, Medical Doctor; Brian Yung, Medical Doctor; Alison Wilson, Medical Doctor; Hector Lopez, Medical Doctor; Valerie Smith, Physician's Assistant; Donardo Fonte, Physician's Assistant; Arunava Saha, Mid Level Practioner; Lorenzo Guevara, Asst. Health Serv. Adm.; L. Fuertes-Rosario, Health Serv. Admin.; W.E. Mackelburg, Admn Rem Cord; Penny Rice, Secretary; R.A. Blocker, Clinical Director; Jason Elliot, Correctional Officer John Doe 3, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-03
Citations: 582 F. App'x 260
Docket Number: No. 14-6539
Parties: Carl Blake BROCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Catherine BOWMAN, Radiology Tech, Defendant-Appellee, and Donald Peitrisko, SIS Lieutenant John Doe 4; John Doe 2, Correctional Officer; Marshall Shearer, Correctional Officer John Doe 1; Brett Friend, Registered Nurse; M. Azumah, Mid Level Practioner; Patricia Corbin, Physician’s Assistant; Jorge S. Vasquez, Medical Doctor; Brian Yung, Medical Doctor; Alison Wilson, Medical Doctor; Hector Lopez, Medical Doctor; Valerie Smith, Physician’s Assistant; Donardo Fonte, Physician’s Assistant; Arunava Saha, Mid Level Practioner; Lorenzo Guevara, Asst. Health Serv. Adm.; L. Fuertes-Rosario, Health Serv. Admin.; W.E. Mackelburg, Admn Rem Cord; Penny Rice, Secretary; R.A. Blocker, Clinical Director; Jason Elliot, Correctional Officer John Doe 3, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 582
Pages: 260–261

Head Matter:
Carl Blake BROCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Catherine BOWMAN, Radiology Tech, Defendant-Appellee, and Donald Peitrisko, SIS Lieutenant John Doe 4; John Doe 2, Correctional Officer; Marshall Shearer, Correctional Officer John Doe 1; Brett Friend, Registered Nurse; M. Azumah, Mid Level Practioner; Patricia Corbin, Physician’s Assistant; Jorge S. Vasquez, Medical Doctor; Brian Yung, Medical Doctor; Alison Wilson, Medical Doctor; Hector Lopez, Medical Doctor; Valerie Smith, Physician’s Assistant; Donardo Fonte, Physician’s Assistant; Arunava Saha, Mid Level Practioner; Lorenzo Guevara, Asst. Health Serv. Adm.; L. Fuertes-Rosario, Health Serv. Admin.; W.E. Mackelburg, Admn Rem Cord; Penny Rice, Secretary; R.A. Blocker, Clinical Director; Jason Elliot, Correctional Officer John Doe 3, Defendants.
No. 14-6539.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 28, 2014.
Decided: Sept. 3, 2014.
Carl Blake Brock, Appellant Pro Se. Walter S. Ameika, Jr., Law Offices of Walter S. Ameika, Jr., North Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Carl Blake Brock appeals the district court's entry of judgment against him in this action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcoties, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). Specifically, he challenges the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying Brock's motions for a default judgment and partial summary judgment against Catherine Bowman. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brock's motion for default. See Colleton Prep. Acad., Inc. v. Hoover Universal, Inc., 616 F.3d 413, 417 (4th Cir.2010) (stating standard of review). Any doubts about whether to grant a default judgment should be resolved in favor of deciding a case on the merits. Tolson v. Hodge, 411 F.2d 123, 130 (4th Cir.1969). The partial summary judgment motion is, in essence, a repetition of Brock's arguments for a default judgment. Accordingly, finding no merit in the issues Brock raises on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.