Royster v. Dove

Fourth Circuit

Royster v. Dove

38 F. App'x 930

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 26, 2002

DocketNos. 02-6274, 02-6488

StatusPublished

This text of 38 F. App'x 930 (Royster v. Dove) 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

Royster v. Dove, 38 F. App'x 930 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Andrei Royster appeals from the district court’s orders denying relief in his action filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging inadequate medical care. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendations and find no reversible error. Accordingly, while we grant Roy-ster’s motion to file a supplemental brief, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Royster v. Dove, No. CA-01-576-2-23 (D.S.C. filed Jan. 11, 2002 and entered Jan. 15, 2002; Feb. 28, 2002). Additionally, we deny Royster’s motion for injunctive relief. 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

PER CURIAM.

Andrei Royster appeals from the district court’s orders denying relief in his action filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging inadequate medical care. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendations and find no reversible error. Accordingly, while we grant Roy-ster’s motion to file a supplemental brief, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Royster v. Dove, No. CA-01-576-2-23 (D.S.C. filed Jan. 11, 2002 and entered Jan. 15, 2002; Feb. 28, 2002). Additionally, we deny Royster’s motion for injunctive relief. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 F. App'x 930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/royster-v-dove-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack