Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Cook v. Bennett, 09-7104 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-7104 Visitors: 84
Filed: Feb. 09, 2010
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7104 CHRISTOPHER EUGENE COOK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BOYD BENNETT, Director of Prisons; JAMES PIERCE, Assistant Superintendent of Programs; DENE PITTS, Assistant Superintendent of Programs, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:07-cv-00031-JAB-DPD) Submitted: January 13, 2010 Decided: Feb
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7104 CHRISTOPHER EUGENE COOK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BOYD BENNETT, Director of Prisons; JAMES PIERCE, Assistant Superintendent of Programs; DENE PITTS, Assistant Superintendent of Programs, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:07-cv-00031-JAB-DPD) Submitted: January 13, 2010 Decided: February 9, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher Eugene Cook, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Yvette Harper, Yvonne Bulluck Ricci, Assistant Attorneys General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christopher Eugene Cook appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing two of his three claims in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint, and affirming the magistrate judge’s order denying Cook’s motion for sanctions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Nor does the record support Cook’s assertion that the district court is biased against him. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Cook v. Bennett, No. 1:07-cv-00031-JAB-DPD (M.D.N.C. Dec. 10, 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 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