Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    Twitty v. Ray, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Andre Twitty filed a Bivens claim against the warden of FCI-Edgefield alleging constitutional violations. The district court denied relief, accepting the magistrate's recommendation. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's decision. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent. The facts and legal arguments were adequately presented so oral arguments were not necessary.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Twitty v. Ray, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Andre Twitty filed a Bivens claim against the warden of FCI-Edgefield alleging constitutional violations. The district court denied relief, accepting the magistrate's recommendation. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's decision. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent. The facts and legal arguments were adequately presented so oral arguments were not necessary.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2001-09-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 01-6612

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Andre Twitty filed a Bivens claim against the warden of FCI-Edgefield alleging constitutional violations. The district court denied relief, accepting the magistrate's recommendation. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's decision. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent. The facts and legal arguments were adequately presented so oral arguments were not necessary.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    3 views2 pages

    Twitty v. Ray, 4th Cir. (2001)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Andre Twitty filed a Bivens claim against the warden of FCI-Edgefield alleging constitutional violations. The district court denied relief, accepting the magistrate's recommendation. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's decision. The unpublished opinion is not binding precedent. The facts and legal arguments were adequately presented so oral arguments were not necessary.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 01-6612

    ANDRE J. TWITTY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    MICKEY E. RAY, Warden of FCI - Edgefield,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
    Judge. (CA-00-421-7-23)

    Submitted:

    September 20, 2001

    Decided:

    September 26, 2001

    Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Andre J. Twitty, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Andre J. Twitty appeals the district courts order denying
    relief on his claims filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents
    of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

    We have reviewed

    the record and the district courts opinion accepting the magistrate judges recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Twitty
    v. Ray, No. CA-00-421-7-23 (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2001).

    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

    You might also like