Case Name: Antoine Leon THURMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS; United States of America; J. Lopez; J. Thomas; FNU Molina; Other Unknown Employees of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-09
Citations: 369 F. App'x 448
Docket Number: No. 09-6482
Parties: Antoine Leon THURMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS; United States of America; J. Lopez; J. Thomas; FNU Molina; Other Unknown Employees of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 369
Pages: 448–448

Head Matter:
Antoine Leon THURMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS; United States of America; J. Lopez; J. Thomas; FNU Molina; Other Unknown Employees of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-6482.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 26, 2010.
Decided: March 9, 2010.
J. Dennis Bolt, Bolt Law Firm, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, R. Emery Clark, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antoine Leon Thurman appeals the magistrate judge's order granting summary judgment for Defendants and dismissing his civil action alleging claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Thurman v. United States Bureau of Prisons, No. 8:06-cv-02458-WMC (D.S.C. Feb. 17, 2009). 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.
The parties consented to the magistrate judge's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).