Case Name: Jose MORA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Suhasini N. SHAH, Doctor; Nancy Pendergrass, Bureau of Prisons Petersburg Medium Dietician; M. Dupree; Miguel A. Cintron, Dr., Medical Department-FCC Coleman; Jorge Pastrana, Warden, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-21
Citations: 451 F. App'x 279
Docket Number: No. 11-6701
Parties: Jose MORA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Suhasini N. SHAH, Doctor; Nancy Pendergrass, Bureau of Prisons Petersburg Medium Dietician; M. Dupree; Miguel A. Cintron, Dr., Medical Department-FCC Coleman; Jorge Pastrana, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 451
Pages: 279–279

Head Matter:
Jose MORA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Suhasini N. SHAH, Doctor; Nancy Pendergrass, Bureau of Prisons Petersburg Medium Dietician; M. Dupree; Miguel A. Cintron, Dr., Medical Department-FCC Coleman; Jorge Pastrana, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-6701.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 18, 2011.
Decided: Oct. 21, 2011.
Jose Mora, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Richard Leonard, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Dorin-da Parkola Burton, Poole Mahoney, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Mora appeals the district court's order denying relief on his complaint, which the district court properly construed as one 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 the district court's order. See Mora v. Shah, No. 2:08-cv-00635-RAJ-DEM (E.D.Va. March 31, 2011). 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.