Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Derrick Boger v. Roy Cooper, 17-7127 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 17-7127 Visitors: 17
Filed: Feb. 01, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7127 DERRICK D. BOGER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROY COOPER, Governor; W. DAVID GUICE, Commissioner of Prisons; GEORGE T. SOLOMON, Director of Prisons; SUSAN WHITE, Superintendent, Alexander Correctional, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (5:17-cv-00141-FDW) Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decid
More
                                     UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 17-7127


DERRICK D. BOGER,

                     Plaintiff - Appellant,

              v.

ROY COOPER, Governor; W. DAVID GUICE, Commissioner of Prisons;
GEORGE T. SOLOMON, Director of Prisons; SUSAN WHITE, Superintendent,
Alexander Correctional,

                     Defendants - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (5:17-cv-00141-FDW)


Submitted: January 30, 2018                                       Decided: February 1, 2018


Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Derrick D. Boger, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Derrick D. Boger appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Boger v. Cooper, No. 5:17-cv-00141-FDW (W.D.N.C. Aug. 15, 2017). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before this 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