Paul Goist v. Charles Samuels, No. 15-7368 (4th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7368 PAUL B. GOIST, a/k/a Paul Benjamin Goist, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHARLES SAMUELS, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, in his official and individual capacity; REAR ADMIRAL NEWTON R. KENDIG, M.D., In his Official and Individual Capacity; HARRELL WATTS, In his Official and Individual Capacity; SOUTH EAST REGIONAL DIRECTOR, SERO; JOHN AND JANE DOES, Statutory Agent Officer, In their Official and Individual Capacity; WARDEN CRUZ, FCI Williamsburg, In her Official and Individual Capacity; ESTATE OF VICTOR LORANTH; WILLIAM RIGNEY, PA/MD, In his Official and Individual Capacity, Defendants – Appellees, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (9:14-cv-04036-RMG) Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. April 25, 2016 Paul Benjamin Goist, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Paul B. Goist appeals the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his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), and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Goist v. Samuels, No. 9:14-cv-04036-RMG (D.S.C. July 22, 2015 & Aug. 25, 2015). 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

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.