Opinion
No. 13-6262
09-06-2013
EDWARD LEE LEWIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; TERRY O'BRIEN; UNKNOWN JOHN DOE ASSOCIATE WARDENS; CAPTAIN BERGAMI; SIA PETRISCO; SIS SERANO; SIS LIEUTENANT FISHER; JOHN AND JANE DOE SIS STAFF; D-UNIT MANAGER MORI; D-UNIT MANAGER WITT; SHU LIEUTENANT HUFFMAN; SHU LIEUTENANT BRENSON; JOHN AND JANE DOE SHU STAFF; P. A. AZUMA; DOCTOR DUBERSAC; MEDICAL STAFF MS. BROWN-STOBBY; JOHN AND JANE DOE MEDICAL STAFF; JOHN AND JANE DOE CORRECTIONAL STAFF, Defendants - Appellees, and ACTING WARDEN, from 8/5/10 to 10/12/10; SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT LIEUTENANTS, from 6/3/10 to 10/12/10; SJS STAFF, through 6/3/10 to 10/12/10; SPECIAL HOUSING STAFF, 6/3/10 to 10/12/10; ACTING D-2 UNIT, from 6/3/10 to 10/12/10; WARDEN MARTINEZ; LIEUTENANT MARR; 3 JOHN AND JANE DOE R&D OFFICERS AT USP-ALLENWOOD, Defendants.
Edward Lee Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Alan McGonigal, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (5:11-cv-00054-JPB-JSK) Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Lee Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Alan McGonigal, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Edward Lee Lewis appeals the district court's orders: 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 (1971); and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lewis v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 5:11-cv-00054-JPB-JSK (N.D. W. Va. Feb. 20, 2013). 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