Fluellen v. United States

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 21, 2005
Docket04-7774
StatusUnpublished

This text of Fluellen v. United States (Fluellen v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fluellen v. United States, (4th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7774

JOSHUA FLUELLEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; KATHLEEN HAWK-SAWYER; R. E. HOLT; DAN DOVE; L. FUERTES ROSARIO; J. A. SERRANO; L. GUEVARA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA-03-211-3-26BC)

Submitted: January 13, 2005 Decided: January 21, 2005

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joshua Fluellen, Appellant Pro Se. Raymond Emery Clark, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Joshua Fluellen appeals a district court judgment

adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, granting

summary judgment to the United States and the remaining Defendants,

and dismissing the complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act

(“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 (2000). We have reviewed the

record, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and the

district court’s order and affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. See Fluellen v. United States, No.

CA-03-211-3-26BC (D.S.C. filed July 30, 2004 & entered August 2,

2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions of the parties are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

- 2 -

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 2671-2680
28 U.S.C. § 2671-2680
§ 2671
28 U.S.C. § 2671

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Fluellen v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fluellen-v-united-states-ca4-2005.