UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6242

CHARLES A. INKO-TARIAH, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; ART F. BEELER, Warden, Federal Medical Center, Butner; MONA HORTON, Supervisor of Education, Federal Medical Center, Butner; MARY ELLIS, Director of Nursing, Federal Medical Center, Butner, Defendants – Appellees.

No. 09-6889

CHARLES A. INKO-TARIAH, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; ART F. BEELER, Warden, Federal Medical Center, Butner; MONA HORTON, Supervisor of Education, Federal Medical Center, Butner; MARY ELLIS, Director of Nursing, Federal Medical Center, Butner; BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendants – Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:05-ct-00585-H) Submitted: September 8, 2009 Decided: October 7, 2009

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles A. Inko-Tariah, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Charles A. Inko-Tariah appeals the dismissal of his complaint alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq., Section of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and North Carolina’s Handicapped Persons Protection Act, N.C.G.S. § 168A-1, et seq. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Inko-Tariah v. Lappin, No. 5:05-ct-00585-H (E.D.N.C. filed Apr. 6, 2006 & entered Apr. 10, 2006; Jan. 30, 2007; Apr. 1, 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