Case Name: Andrei ROYSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.L. DOVE, Warden; J.A. Serrano, Dr.; L. Fuertes Rosario, Medical Director; Yates, Associate Warden, Defendants-Appellees; Andrei Royster, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.L. Dove, Warden; J.A. Serrano, Dr., L. Fuertes Rosario, Medical Director; Yates, Associate Warden, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-06-26
Citations: 38 F. App'x 930
Docket Number: Nos. 02-6274, 02-6488
Parties: Andrei ROYSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.L. DOVE, Warden; J.A. Serrano, Dr.; L. Fuertes Rosario, Medical Director; Yates, Associate Warden, Defendants-Appellees. Andrei Royster, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.L. Dove, Warden; J.A. Serrano, Dr., L. Fuertes Rosario, Medical Director; Yates, Associate Warden, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 38
Pages: 930–930

Head Matter:
Andrei ROYSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.L. DOVE, Warden; J.A. Serrano, Dr.; L. Fuertes Rosario, Medical Director; Yates, Associate Warden, Defendants-Appellees. Andrei Royster, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.L. Dove, Warden; J.A. Serrano, Dr., L. Fuertes Rosario, Medical Director; Yates, Associate Warden, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 02-6274, 02-6488.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 20, 2002.
Decided June 26, 2002.
Andrei Royster, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Office of The United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Andrei Royster appeals from the district court's orders denying relief in his action filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging inadequate medical care. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions accepting the magistrate judge's recommendations and find no reversible error. Accordingly, while we grant Roy-ster's motion to file a supplemental brief, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Royster v. Dove, No. CA-01-576-2-23 (D.S.C. filed Jan. 11, 2002 and entered Jan. 15, 2002; Feb. 28, 2002). Additionally, we deny Royster's motion for injunctive relief. 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.