Case Name: Marshall Lee MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mildred RIVERA, Warden; Sean Ashline, FS Adm; Doctor Reed; Doctor Eneje; Nurse Rainwater, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-24
Citations: 589 F. App'x 125
Docket Number: No. 14-7076
Parties: Marshall Lee MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mildred RIVERA, Warden; Sean Ashline, FS Adm; Doctor Reed; Doctor Eneje; Nurse Rainwater, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 589
Pages: 125–126

Head Matter:
Marshall Lee MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mildred RIVERA, Warden; Sean Ashline, FS Adm; Doctor Reed; Doctor Eneje; Nurse Rainwater, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-7076.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 18, 2014.
Decided: Dec. 24, 2014.
Marshall Lee Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marshall Lee Mitchell appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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. Mitchell v. Rivera, No. 4:13- cv-01949-TMC, 2014 WL 3055115 (D.S.C. July 3, 2014). 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.
We grant Mitchell's motion for leave to supplement his informal brief, and we accept his attached supplement and supplemental authorities. We deny as moot Mitchell's motion to extend the time to reply to Appellees' responsive pleadings because no such pleadings have been filed.