Case Name: Moses KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John DOES, various DEA Agents; John Does, various U.S. Marshal Service Agents, Defendants-Appellees, and John Doe, Deputy; DEA Agents; Drug Enforcement Administration; United States Marshal Service, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-19
Citations: 331 F. App'x 241
Docket Number: No. 09-6601
Parties: Moses KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John DOES, various DEA Agents; John Does, various U.S. Marshal Service Agents, Defendants-Appellees, and John Doe, Deputy; DEA Agents; Drug Enforcement Administration; United States Marshal Service, Defendants.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 331
Pages: 241–242

Head Matter:
Moses KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John DOES, various DEA Agents; John Does, various U.S. Marshal Service Agents, Defendants-Appellees, and John Doe, Deputy; DEA Agents; Drug Enforcement Administration; United States Marshal Service, Defendants.
No. 09-6601.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 20, 2009.
Decided; Aug. 19, 2009.
Moses King, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Moses King appeals the district court's orders: (1) accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint filed 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 (2) denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. King v. John Does, No. 6:07-cv-04155-DCN (D.S.C. Feb. 4 & Feb. 19, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and ai'gument would not aid the decisional jorocess.
AFFIRMED.