Victor Buencamino v. US, No. 15-6840 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6840 VICTOR J. BUENCAMINO, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; CHARLES SAMUELS; NEWTON E. KENDIG; H. WILLIAMS; KENNY ATKINSON; ASSOCIATE WARDEN COLE; ASSOCIATE WARDEN BOLSTER; ASHLEY MURRAY; ROBERT E. COCHRANE; BRYON HERBEL; MAUREEN REARDON; NURSE WILSON; LT. STONE; LT. EATON; LT. PARENT; C.O. JOHNSON; C.O. CHAPMAN; C.O. JACKET; C.O. BEARD; C.O. BOLTON; C.O. RICHARDSON; EDWARD LANDIS, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:14-ct-03307-BO) Submitted: September 29, 2015 Decided: October 9, 2015 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Victor J. Buencamino, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Victor J. appeals as dismissing Buencamino frivolous his the district complaint court’s filed order pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680 (2012), and denying his various motions. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. does not in See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). his informal brief Because Buencamino challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Further, we decline to consider the issue Buencamino does raise on appeal, as he did not properly raise that issue before the district court. States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). leave to proceed in court’s judgment. facts and materials legal before forma pauperis See Muth v. United Accordingly, we grant and affirm the district We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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.