Edward Lewis v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 13-6262 (4th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6262 EDWARD LEE LEWIS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; TERRY O'BRIEN; UNKNOWN JOHN DOE ASSOCIATE WARDENS; CAPTAIN BERGAMI; SIA PETRISCO; SIS SERANO; SIS LIEUTENANT FISHER; JOHN AND JANE DOE SIS STAFF; D-UNIT MANAGER MORI; D-UNIT MANAGER WITT; SHU LIEUTENANT HUFFMAN; SHU LIEUTENANT BRENSON; JOHN AND JANE DOE SHU STAFF; P. A. AZUMA; DOCTOR DUBERSAC; MEDICAL STAFF MS. BROWN-STOBBY; JOHN AND JANE DOE MEDICAL STAFF; JOHN AND JANE DOE CORRECTIONAL STAFF, Defendants Appellees, and ACTING WARDEN, from 8/5/10 to 10/12/10; SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT LIEUTENANTS, from 6/3/10 to 10/12/10; SJS STAFF, through 6/3/10 to 10/12/10; SPECIAL HOUSING STAFF, 6/3/10 to 10/12/10; ACTING D-2 UNIT, from 6/3/10 to 10/12/10; WARDEN MARTINEZ; LIEUTENANT MARR; 3 JOHN AND JANE DOE R&D OFFICERS AT USP-ALLENWOOD, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (5:11-cv-00054-JPB-JSK) Submitted: July 11, 2013 Decided: September 6, 2013 Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Lee Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. Alan McGonigal, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Edward Lee Lewis appeals the district court s orders: accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on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. the record and find no reversible error. We have reviewed Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lewis v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 5:11-cv-00054-JPB-JSK (N.D. W. Va. Feb. 20, 2013). legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.