Ray v. Simon

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedAugust 4, 2009
Docket09-6047
StatusUnpublished

This text of Ray v. Simon (Ray v. Simon) 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
Ray v. Simon, (4th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6047

MICHAEL R. RAY, a/k/a Michael Robert Ray,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHNNY SIMON, ISM Supervisor FCI Estill; MATTHEW B. HAMIDULLAH, Former Warden FCI Estill; ROY LATHROP, Paralegal SC Consolidated Legal Center FBOP; KERRY L. MENCHEN, Deputy Attorney General State of New Jersey; THOMAS J. MULVANEY, Investigator #909 State of New Jersey; KENNETH E. CRANE, Investigator #1689 State of New Jersey; RITCHIE KING, Investigator #1276 State of New Jersey; NINA MUSE, Acting Detainer Administrator State of New Jersey; ARNITA JONES, Inmate Systems Manager FCI Estill; WARDEN, FCI-Estill,

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-01143-TLW)

Submitted: July 30, 2009 Decided: August 4, 2009

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael R. Ray, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Keith s. Massey, Jr., OFFICE OF THE NEW JERSEY ATTORNEY GENERAL, Trenton, New Jersey, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Michael R. Ray appeals from the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition in which he

alleged claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983/Bivens. * We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm the order of the district court. See Ray v. Simon,

No. 4:07-cv-01143-TLW (D.S.C. Dec. 24, 2008). 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

* See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ray v. Simon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-v-simon-ca4-2009.