McDaniels v. United States

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJuly 24, 2009
Docket09-6265
StatusUnpublished

This text of McDaniels v. United States (McDaniels 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
McDaniels v. United States, (4th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6265

KEVIN WAYNE MCDANIELS,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA; UNITED STATES MARSHAL JOHNNY MACK BROWN; UNITED STATES MARSHAL PATRICK PRUITT; UNITED STATES MARSHAL RICK KELLEY; UNITED STATES MARSHAL JOHN DOE, served in their individual and official capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:07-cv-03386-TLW)

Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: July 24, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Wayne McDaniels, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Kevin Wayne McDaniels appeals the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six

Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388

(1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 -

2680 (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny McDaniels’s motions for appointment

of counsel, injunctive relief, default judgment, and production

of documents, and affirm the judgment of the district court.

McDaniels v. United States, No. 4:07-cv-03386-TLW (D.S.C. Jan.

28, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
McDaniels v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdaniels-v-united-states-ca4-2009.