Court Opinion

ID: 9785030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:01:13.4804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:08.788189
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6346      Doc: 17         Filed: 08/29/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6346

        DONALD REYNOLDS,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        D. L. YOUNG, Warden; MANNING, SIS Officer; SWEENY, SIS Officer;
        WISEMAN, Mailroom Officer; BANTON, Mailroom Officer; ANSLEY, Mailroom
        Officer; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Beckley. Frank W. Volk, District Judge. (5:20-cv-00753)

        Submitted: August 24, 2023                                        Decided: August 29, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Donald Reynolds, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6346      Doc: 17        Filed: 08/29/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Donald Reynolds appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation

        of the magistrate judge to deny Reynolds summary judgment and grant Defendants

        summary judgment in Reynolds’ action filed pursuant to 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. Reynolds

        v. Young, No. 5:20-cv-00753 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 30, 2023). We deny Reynolds’ motion for

        appointment of counsel. 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