Case Name: James A. BUTLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.E. GUNJA, Health Services, Health Administrator; Forster, PA; Smith, PA; Kathleen H. Hawk; John Doe, sued in his individual and official capacity; Jane Doe, sued in her individual and official capacity; Elayan; D. Miller; T. Miller; R. Cosgrove; Lieutenant Grey; D. Williams, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-02-26
Citations: 56 F. App'x 175
Docket Number: No. 02-7237
Parties: James A. BUTLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.E. GUNJA, Health Services, Health Administrator; Forster, PA; Smith, PA; Kathleen H. Hawk; John Doe, sued in his individual and official capacity; Jane Doe, sued in her individual and official capacity; Elayan; D. Miller; T. Miller; R. Cosgrove; Lieutenant Grey; D. Williams, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 56
Pages: 175–175

Head Matter:
James A. BUTLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.E. GUNJA, Health Services, Health Administrator; Forster, PA; Smith, PA; Kathleen H. Hawk; John Doe, sued in his individual and official capacity; Jane Doe, sued in her individual and official capacity; Elayan; D. Miller; T. Miller; R. Cosgrove; Lieutenant Grey; D. Williams, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-7237.
United. States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2003.
Decided Feb. 26, 2003.
James A. Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Nadira Clarke, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James A. Butler appeals the district court's order dismissing his Bivens claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Butler v. Gunja, No. CA-01-3770-WMN (D. Md. June 12, 2002). 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.
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).