UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6234
RICHARD DEAN MEARS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
E. G. ESPARZA, Acting Warden; ROBERT TRYBUS, SIS Lieutenant;
MR. ELZA, Captain; MS. KOVSCEK, SIS Lieutenant Tech.; MS.
JOHNSON, Lieutenant; KENNETH ADAMS, Unit Manager; MR.
ROBINSON, Education Supervisor; JAMES TURNER, Counselor;
LORI LINDSAY, Case Manager; LISA LITTLE, Case Manager;
RONALD W. RIKER, Section Chief, Designation & Sentence
Computation Center; PAMELA STEINER, Case Manager, FCI
Elkton,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (2:08-cv-00115-JPB-DJJ)
Submitted: November 17, 2011 Decided: November 22, 2011
Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Dean Mears, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Richard Dean Mears appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on Mears’ motion for reconsideration of the denial of his
retaliation claim in his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1971), and denying Mears’ subsequent motion for
reconsideration. ∗ We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. Mears v. Esparza, No. 2:08-cv-00115-JPB-
DJJ (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 22, 2010 & Jan. 13, 2011). 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
∗
Mears’ appeal from these orders was interlocutory when
filed. The district court’s subsequent entry of a final
judgment permits review of the order under the doctrine of
cumulative finality. In re Bryson, 406 F.3d 284, 287–89 (4th
Cir. 2005); Equip. Fin. Group, Inc. v. Traverse Computer
Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 347 (4th Cir. 1992).
3