Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Wood v. Mecklenburg County Dept Social Services, 08-2293 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-2293 Visitors: 193
Filed: Mar. 19, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2293 WILLIAM WOOD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MECKLENBURG COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; RICHARD JACOBSEN, Director; SONIA BUSH, Social Worker, in their Personal and Official Capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. David C. Keesler, Magistrate Judge. (3:07-cv-00273-DCK) Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 19, 2009 B
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2293 WILLIAM WOOD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MECKLENBURG COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; RICHARD JACOBSEN, Director; SONIA BUSH, Social Worker, in their Personal and Official Capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. David C. Keesler, Magistrate Judge. (3:07-cv-00273-DCK) Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 19, 2009 Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Wood, Appellant Pro Se. Robert S. Adden, Jr., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Wood appeals the magistrate judge’s orders dismissing his civil action for lack of jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and denying his motion to reconsider. ∗ We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wood v. Mecklenburg Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., No. 3:07- cv-00273-DCK (W.D.N.C. Aug. 18, 2008 & Oct. 17, 2008). 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 ∗ The parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (2006). 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer