Court Opinion

ID: 9956781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 21:00:41.74187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:55.176043
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7319      Doc: 15         Filed: 04/01/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7319

        TIMOTHY MCNEAL,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        J. HUTCHINSON, Acting Warden; C. NEVILS; MR. GLENN; MS. LANHAM;
        MS. NECOMB; MR. TAYLOR; MS. JOHNSON; MS. V. MARTIN,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:21-cv-03431-JFA)

        Submitted: March 21, 2024                                         Decided: April 1, 2024

        Before THACKER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Timothy McNeal, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney,
        Jennifer L. Mallory, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7319      Doc: 15         Filed: 04/01/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Timothy McNeal appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to

        dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment, and dismissing his complaint, which

        raised Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment claims against several prison employees under

        Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

        We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the

        district court’s order. See McNeal v. Hutchinson, No. 2:21-cv-03431-JFA (D.S.C. Nov. 2,

        2022). We further deny McNeal’s motion for default. We dispense with oral argument

        because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

        court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                     2