Case Name: Salim HAKIMI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES of America; Mary Loiselle, Field Office Director for Detention & Removal, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in her individual capacity; DOES 1 through 11, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-02
Citations: 332 F. App'x 816
Docket Number: No. 08-2388
Parties: Salim HAKIMI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES of America; Mary Loiselle, Field Office Director for Detention & Removal, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in her individual capacity; DOES 1 through 11, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 816–817

Head Matter:
Salim HAKIMI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES of America; Mary Loiselle, Field Office Director for Detention & Removal, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in her individual capacity; DOES 1 through 11, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-2388.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 10, 2009.
Decided: Oct. 2, 2009.
Dean E. Wanderer, Dean E. Wanderer & Associates, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney, Lauren A. Wetzler, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Salim Hakimi, a native and citizen of Afghanistan, appeals the district court's order granting the United States' and the remaining Defendants' motion to dismiss his action filed pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (2006), and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). Hakimi alleged his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were violated when he was arrested and detained pending a final determination by an immigration judge as to his removability. We have reviewed the record and the district court's order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hakimi v. United States, No. 1:08-cv-00075CMH-TRJ (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 18, 2008; entered Nov. 19, 2008). 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.