Court Opinion

ID: 9962853
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 21:00:58.675518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:26.452790
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1073      Doc: 19         Filed: 04/22/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 24-1073

        RAJ K. PATEL,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        KAMALA D. HARRIS, The President of the Senate; LINDA THOMAS-
        GREENFIELD, UN Ambassador; NIKKI HALEY, former UN Ambassador and
        former Governor of the State of South Carolina, and former Representative in the
        State of South Carolina House of Representatives,

                            Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:23-cv-05324-DCN)

        Submitted: April 18, 2024                                         Decided: April 22, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Raj K. Patel, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1073      Doc: 19        Filed: 04/22/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

              Raj K. Patel appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the

        magistrate judge and dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) Patel’s complaint filed

        pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.

        388 (1971), and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no

        reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Patel v. Harris, No.

        2:23-cv-05324-DCN (D.S.C. Dec. 5, 2023 & Feb. 29, 2024). 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