Woltz v. Scarantino
This text of 475 F. App'x 882 (Woltz v. Scarantino) 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.
Opinion
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Howell W. Woltz 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, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Woltz v. Scarantino, No. 5:10-cv-00095, 2011 WL 1229994 (S.D.W.Va. Mar. 31, 2011). 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
475 F. App'x 882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woltz-v-scarantino-ca4-2012.