Case Name: Terrance MAYO; Marcelo Cartagena, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Clinton ROBINSON; Darrell Howard, Plaintiffs, v. Willie Scott, Warden at WCC/Rivers Correctional Institution, Defendant-Appellee, and Wackenhut Correctional Corporation, c/o Wayne H. Calabrese, President; Philip Morris USA, Incorporated, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-19
Citations: 106 F. App'x 838
Docket Number: No. 03-7201
Parties: Terrance MAYO; Marcelo Cartagena, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Clinton ROBINSON; Darrell Howard, Plaintiffs, v. Willie Scott, Warden at WCC/Rivers Correctional Institution, Defendant-Appellee, and Wackenhut Correctional Corporation, c/o Wayne H. Calabrese, President; Philip Morris USA, Incorporated, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 106
Pages: 838–838

Head Matter:
Terrance MAYO; Marcelo Cartagena, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Clinton ROBINSON; Darrell Howard, Plaintiffs, v. Willie Scott, Warden at WCC/Rivers Correctional Institution, Defendant-Appellee, and Wackenhut Correctional Corporation, c/o Wayne H. Calabrese, President; Philip Morris USA, Incorporated, Defendants.
No. 03-7201.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 31, 2004.
Decided: Aug. 19, 2004.
Terrance Mayo, Marcelo Cartagena, Appellants pro se.
Mark Allen Davis, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Terrance Mayo and Marcelo Cartagena appeal the district court's order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment in this action 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. See Robinson v. Scott, No. CA-03-45-5-H (E.D.N.C. July 22, 2003). 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