114 F.3d 1178 (4th Cir. 1997), 97-6046, Williams v. Bidwell

• Citation: 114 F.3d 1178
• Party Name: Alan J. WILLIAMS, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, i.e. all past, present and future prisoners at Federal Correctional Institute Cumberland, Maryland, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dennis R. BIDWELL, Warden; Oliver Brown, former Supervisor of Education; Elain Leap, Acting Supervisor of Education; Jeff Tilley, Disciplinar
• Case Date: June 06, 1997
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 1178

114 F.3d 1178 (4th Cir. 1997)

Alan J. WILLIAMS, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, i.e. all past, present and future prisoners at Federal Correctional Institute Cumberland, Maryland, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Dennis R. BIDWELL, Warden; Oliver Brown, former Supervisor of Education; Elain Leap, Acting Supervisor of Education; Jeff Tilley, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; Carrol Tyndall, Captain; B. Small, Special Housing Unit, Lieutenant; Charles Riffle, Senior Officer Specialist, a/k/a Chuck, a/k/a Riff; Paul C. Maffley, Correctional Officer; Federal Correctional Institute, Cumberland; United States of America, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 97-6046.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

June 6, 1997

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA4 Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Submitted: May 29, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-96-1151-CCB)

Alan J. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Earle Bronson Wilson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss Williams' Bivens complaint, ^[*] dismissing his 28 U.S.C.§ 1346(b) claim, and dismissing his claim for injunctive relief. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Williams v. Bidwell, No. CA-96-1151-CCB (D.Md. Dec. 5, 1996). 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

---

Notes:

^[*] See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

---