Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 12-6653
Defendants Appellees,
and
MR. GREENWALL, Food Service Administrator;
BRADLEY, Supervisor of Education; HAROLD BOYLES,
MS.
DEBRA
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:07-cv-00062-JPB)
Submitted:
Decided:
Appellees.
PER CURIAM:
William Eugene Webb appeals from the jurys verdict
for Defendants in his Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.
Bureau
of
Narcotics,
403
U.S.
388
(1971)
suit,
finding
that
regarding
his
hernia.
Webb
find
no
substantially
reversible
for
the
appeals
various
error.
reasons
also
Accordingly,
stated
by
the
we
affirm
district
court.
consider
certain
of
Webbs
In addition, we
appellate
claims
not
challenges
the
district
courts
denial
of
his
is
difference
controlling
of
opinion
issue
and
of
that
law
an
on
which
immediate
there
appeal
is
would
authority
supporting
an
the
interlocutory
conclusion
appeal
the
itself
denial
an
of
request
for
order.
is
that
appealable
There is no difference
that
he
would
have
succeeded
in
an
interlocutory
Webb
challenges
documents as irrelevant.
the
exclusion
of
certain
(GERD),
However,
although
related
to
connecting
his
the
as
well
Webb
his
contends
hernia,
two
as
he
actual
on
appeal
failed
conditions
in
to
hernia
and
that
his
provide
any
district
court.
scars.
GERD
was
evidence
Moreover,
the
district
courts
failure
to
investigate
his
make
the
necessary
arrangements
to
provide
the
pro
se
would
need
entertain
assistance
with
motions
should
prosecuting
Webb
his
case
additional
but
that
it
time
would
or
not
conclusory manner and does not provide any evidence that the
conditions
of
Defendants.
which
he
complained
were
orchestrated
by
the
conclude
that,
even
assuming
for
the
sake
of
argument that the district court was under some sort of duty to
investigate, any failure to do so is irrelevant to the issues in
this case.
any
allegations
that
Defendants
actions
However,
impacted
his
of
Defendant
Orsolits
testimony
even
though
the
in
three
days,
making
any
recess
unnecessary,
but
that
Our review of
the
court
put
time
limit
closing
arguments.
In
Based
on
our
review
of
the
record,
the
district
courts recess of ten days, while not ideal for the presentation
of
Webbs
case,
lengthier
was
trial
not
than
intentional
the
parties
and
resulted
from
anticipated.
Webbs
that
Webb
transcribe
jury
failed
Orsolits
to
was
compromised
object
testimony,
to
the
and
during
courts
he
makes
the
recess.
refusal
no
to
specific
preserve his claims for appeal, we find that his claims are
without merit.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the
district court.
moot
and
dispense
deny
with
contentions
are
motion
for
argument
adequately
appointment
because
presented
in
the
the
of
counsel.
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED