Case Name: Ernesto POUX, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FCI BENNETTSVILLE SC, SSLT Mailroom; FCI Bennettsville SC, SHU Officers; FCI Bennettsville SC, C Unit Manager; J. Edwards, Lt.; S. Morrison, Lt.; Ms. T. Lewis, Lt.; D. Hudson, Lt.; Ms. S. Cartwright; John Does; Jane Does, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-09-16
Citations: 446 F. App'x 577
Docket Number: No. 11-6605
Parties: Ernesto POUX, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FCI BENNETTSVILLE SC, SSLT Mailroom; FCI Bennettsville SC, SHU Officers; FCI Bennettsville SC, C Unit Manager; J. Edwards, Lt.; S. Morri son, Lt.; Ms. T. Lewis, Lt.; D. Hudson, Lt.; Ms. S. Cartwright; John Does; Jane Does, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 446
Pages: 577–578

Head Matter:
Ernesto POUX, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FCI BENNETTSVILLE SC, SSLT Mailroom; FCI Bennettsville SC, SHU Officers; FCI Bennettsville SC, C Unit Manager; J. Edwards, Lt.; S. Morri son, Lt.; Ms. T. Lewis, Lt.; D. Hudson, Lt.; Ms. S. Cartwright; John Does; Jane Does, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-6605.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 13, 2011.
Decided: Sept. 16, 2011.
Ernesto Poux, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ernesto Poux, Jr., 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. Poux v. FCI, No. 4:10-cv-00433-HFF, 2010 WL 5141708 (D.S.C. Dec. 8, 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.