The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
14-6040•Eugene Jerome Cunningham v. DARLENE DREW, Warden, FCI Bennettsville; G. DEL REL, Captain, FCI Bennettsville
14-6040Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 2, 2014
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6040
EUGENE JEROME CUNNINGHAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DARLENE DREW, Warden, FCI Bennettsville; G. DEL REL,
Captain, FCI Bennettsville,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
INMATE WORK COMMITTEE, a/k/a Inmate Job Quotas Assignment
Members, FCI Bennettsville; T. WHITEHEAD, Acting CMC Case
Manager Coordinator, FCI Bennettsville; C. HARDEN, Case
Manager, FCI Bennettsville; M. HOLLAND, Case Manager, FCI
Bennettsville; T. SMALLS, Principal, FCI Bennettsville; W.
KINNION, Food Service Administrator, FCI Bennettsville,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge.
(9:12-cv-02596-RMG)
Submitted: April 28, 2014 Decided: May 2, 2014
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
Eugene Jerome Cunningham, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier
Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Jerome Cunningham appeals the district court’s
order 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). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Cunningham v. Drew, No. 9:12-cv-02596-RMG
(D.S.C. Dec. 23, 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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.