Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

49 F. App'x 476

Althouse v. Lowery

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided October 31, 2002

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2002-10-31

Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · In Re Long Term Administrative Segregation of Inmates Designated as Five Percenters. Alexander Mickle, Donnathian Grant, Ameed Stevenson, Shaleek Azeem, Antonio Roach, Fountain Wise Allah, Von Huggins, James Hughes, Lord Musa God Allah, Equality King Supreme Allah, Wayne Hemingway, Kironda Haynes, James Zimmerman, Prince Hughes, Milton Dozier, Gregory Moment, Clarence Carter, Raheem Malik Shabazz, Tejie White, Grover Lumpkin, Booker Williams, Wayne Samuels, Charvell Douglas, Elijah Smith, Quinta Parker, Tony Addison, Maurice Jacques, Leroy Smalls, Edward Washington, Larry Nelson, Derrick Dunbar, Ralph Davis, Brittie Cooke, Leroy Brice, Jermaine Dillard, Lord Shameal Allah, James Harrington, Tyrone Mitchell, Albert Jones, David Cross, Maurice Edwards, John Frazier v. Michael Moore, Commissioner William Catoe, Deputy Director for Operations, South Carolina Department of Corrections Kenneth D. McKellar Director of Security, South Carolina Department of Corrections in Their Official and Individual Capacities, and Scdc

Decided 2002-10-31

PER CURIAM.

¶1Richard Clyde Althouse appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Althouse v. Lowery, No. CA-02-478-5-BO (E.D.N.C. filed July 11, 2002; entered July 12, 2002). To the extent that Althouse alleges an Eighth Amendment violation in regard to his soli*477tary confinement, he has not established that he has been deprived of a basic human need. See In re: Long Term Admin. Segregation of Inmates, 174 F.3d 464, 472 (4th Cir.1999). 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.

¶2 AFFIRMED.

/49/fappx/476 · .json · Public domain