Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hoover v. Bertie Correctional Institute, 07-7742 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-7742 Visitors: 8
Filed: Apr. 03, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7742 ANTHONY LEON HOOVER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BERTIE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE NUMBER 4880, Mailroom Department Service and Other Blue Unit JC-42; LANESBORO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Mailroom Department Service and Other Blue Unit JD-44; CENTRAL PRISON, Mailroom Department Service and Other Dorm F7 Room EL110; FORSYTH COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Mailroom Department Service and Other Room 10A-17, Defendants - Appellees. Appe
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7742 ANTHONY LEON HOOVER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BERTIE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE NUMBER 4880, Mailroom Department Service and Other Blue Unit JC-42; LANESBORO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Mailroom Department Service and Other Blue Unit JD-44; CENTRAL PRISON, Mailroom Department Service and Other Dorm F7 Room EL110; FORSYTH COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Mailroom Department Service and Other Room 10A-17, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cv-00615-NCT-WWD) Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 3, 2008 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Leon Hoover, Appellant Pro se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Leon Hoover appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hoover v. Bertie Correction Inst., No. 1:07- cv-00615-NCT-WWD (M.D.N.C. Nov. 15, 2007). We deny Hoover’s motion to amend his complaint, deny the motion for appointment of counsel, and deny the motion for a preliminary injunction. 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