Case Name: Clarence T. FOX, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, in its official capacity; Paul Gonzales, in his individual capacity; Katheryn Mack, in her individual capacity; Brenda Shell, in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-04
Citations: 396 F. App'x 966
Docket Number: No. 10-6409
Parties: Clarence T. FOX, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, in its official capacity; Paul Gonzales, in his individual capacity; Katheryn Mack, in her individual capacity; Brenda Shell, in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 396
Pages: 966–967

Head Matter:
Clarence T. FOX, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, in its official capacity; Paul Gonzales, in his individual capacity; Katheryn Mack, in her individual capacity; Brenda Shell, in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-6409.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 28, 2010.
Decided: Oct. 4, 2010.
Clarence T. Fox, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Mureier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Clarence T. Fox, Jr., appeals the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, 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 denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Fox v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 0:08-cv-02431-GRA (D.S.C. Jan. 27 & Mar. 5, 2010). 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.