Bobby Burghart v. Sarah Beyer
Bobby Burghart v. Sarah Beyer
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7450
BOBBY BURGHART, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SARA BEYER, Defendant - Appellee, and THOMAS KANE; J. F. CARAWAY; J. ANDREWS; ERIC W. GIBSON; T.
PALUCH; B. NEAGLE; KIRKPATRICK; BRADFORD, Unicore Plant Manager; BELLAS, Unit Supervisor; R. SIMMONS; S. COX; L. LINDSAY; PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT DERRY; WILLIAM O’DONNELL; STEPHANIE MARTIN, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:17-ct-03048-BO)
Submitted: March 12, 2020 Decided: March 16, 2020
Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bobby Burghart, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Bobby Burghart appeals the district court’s order dismissing his claims pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 (2018), under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2018), and granting summary judgment on some of his claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for failure to exhaust or on the merits, and a subsequent order granting summary judgment to Defendants on the remaining deliberate indifference claims. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Burghart v. Beyer, No. 5:17-ct-03048-BO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 2018; Sept. 17, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.