Aurelio Varela, Plaintiff-appellant, v. J.j. Clark, Previous Warden, L.a. Still, Lieutenant, C.arrington, Sr., Officer Specialist, Judy Johnson, Dutyofficer, Mentzer, Correctional Counselor, Hickey,correctional Counselor, S.r. Rhoades, Unit Manager, J. Doe,administrative Building Officer, Nisbet, Previous Counselor,defendants-appellees,andj. Doe, Tower Officer, Defendant.aurelio Varela, Plaintiff-appellant, v. J.j. Clark, Previous Warden, L.a. Still, Lieutenant, C.arrington, Sr., Officer Specialist, Judy Johnson, Dutyofficer, Mentzer, Correctional Counselor, Hickey,correctional Counselor, S.r. Rhoades, Unit Manager, J. Doe,administrative Building Officer, Nisbet, Previous Counselor,defendants-appellees,andj. Doe, Tower Officer, Defendant, 935 F.2d 1288 (4th Cir. 1991)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 935 F.2d 1288 (4th Cir. 1991) Submitted June 3, 1991. Decided June 20, 1991

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, District Judge. (CA-90-1548-N)

Aurelio Varela, appellant pro se.

J. Phillip Krajewski, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Va., for appellees.

E.D. Va.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:


Aurelio Varela appeals from the district court's orders denying relief in this action filed under the authority of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979) (applying Bivens to claims alleging violation of the due process clause of the fifth amendment). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that these appeals are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Varela v. Clark, CA-90-1548-N (E.D. Va. Jan. 8 and Feb. 6, 1991). 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.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.