Bennie MacK Jr. v. D. Drew

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Bennie MacK Jr. v. D. Drew

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7229

BENNIE A. MACK, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

D. DREW, in her individual capacity and in her official capacity as Warden for the Federal Correctional Institute at Bennettsville South Carolina; P. JENKINSON, in her individual capacity and in her official capacity as case Manager at FCI Bennettsville South Carolina; MS. STONEBREAKER, in her individual capacity as Camp Counselor at FCI Bennettsville South Carolina; R. E. HOLT, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Regional Director for the Federal Bureau of Prisons; YVONNE HINKSON, in her individual capacity and in her official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (9:09-cv-02891-JFA)

Submitted: February 9, 2012 Decided: February 16, 2012

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bennie A. Mack, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Bennie A. Mack, Jr. appeals the district court’s

orders denying his motions to reconsider and reinstating the

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v.

Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,

403 U.S. 388

(1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. See Mack v. Drew, No. 9:09-cv-02891-JFA (D.S.C.

Aug. 8, 2011; July 5, 2011; Feb. 24, 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

3

Reference

Status
Unpublished