Court Opinion

ID: 9375242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-25 21:00:49.385936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:57.137679
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7234      Doc: 13         Filed: 02/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7234

        CARLOS ALBERTO GARCIA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        LT. JAMES BOWLES; LT. LIVELY; ACTIVE CAPTAIN, at that time; ACTIVE
        WARDEN, at that time; OFFICER BATES; OFFICER J. BLEDSOE; OFFICER J.
        HORNSBY; OFFICER N. STAPLETON; NURSE MEADE, R.N.; N. BLEDSOE;
        LYNN HORNSBY,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:20-cv-00629-JPJ-PMS)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                 Decided: February 24, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Carlos Alberto Garcia, Appellant Pro Se. Justin Michael Lugar, OFFICE OF THE
        UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7234      Doc: 13         Filed: 02/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Carlos Alberto Garcia appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his

        complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

        Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

        Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Garcia v. Bowles, No.

        7:20-cv-00629-JPJ-PMS (W.D Va. Sept. 6, 2022). 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