Case Name: Andres Javier SANCHEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dominic MCLAIN; Roger Edwards, Defendants-Appellees, and Charles Felts, Warden; Kevin Thompson; K.M. White; Harrell Watts, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-04
Citations: 474 F. App'x 908
Docket Number: No. 11-7468
Parties: Andres Javier SANCHEZ, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Dominic MCLAIN; Roger Edwards, Defendants—Appellees, and Charles Felts, Warden; Kevin Thompson; K.M. White; Harrell Watts, Defendants.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 908–909

Head Matter:
Andres Javier SANCHEZ, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Dominic MCLAIN; Roger Edwards, Defendants—Appellees, and Charles Felts, Warden; Kevin Thompson; K.M. White; Harrell Watts, Defendants.
No. 11-7468.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 15, 2012.
Decided: April 4, 2012.
Andres Javier Sanchez, Appellant Pro Se. J. Christopher Krivonyak, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Andres Javier Sanchez appeals from the district court's amended judgment order denying his summary judgment motions, denying Defendants' motion in limine as moot, and granting Defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, on his claims against them, which the district court construed as claims brought 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), and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2671-2680 (West 2006 & Supp.2011). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's amended judgment order. See Sanchez v. McLain, No. 5:07-cv-00355 (S.D.W.Va. Oct. 6, 2011). 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.