Court Opinion

ID: 9381125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 21:01:05.579184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:30.127404
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2111      Doc: 8         Filed: 03/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-2111

        TIMOTHY A. JOHNSON,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        VIBEKE O. DANKWA, M.D., Medical Doctor/Primary Care Physician; NURSE
        BERNARD SHAFFER, Registered Nurse; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
        EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; FCI
        MORGANTOWN MEDICAL FACILITY,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:20-cv-00157-GMG)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 20, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Timothy A. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2111      Doc: 8         Filed: 03/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Timothy A. Johnson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint filed

        pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403

        U.S. 388 (1971), for his failure to appear for his noticed depositions. We have reviewed

        the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Johnson v. Dankwa,

        No. 3:20-cv-00157-GMG (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 19, 2022). We also deny Johnson’s pending

        motion “for consideration of motion . . . filed with the trial court based on new evidence.”

        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