Filed: Nov. 25, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7732 PATRICK L. BOOKER, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. VERA JENKINS, Grievance Coordinator, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:09-cv-01891-HMH) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 25, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pat
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7732 PATRICK L. BOOKER, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. VERA JENKINS, Grievance Coordinator, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:09-cv-01891-HMH) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 25, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patr..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7732 PATRICK L. BOOKER, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. VERA JENKINS, Grievance Coordinator, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:09-cv-01891-HMH) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 25, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick L. Booker, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Patrick L. Booker appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint, as well as the district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Booker v. Jenkins, No. 2:09-cv- 01891-HMH (D.S.C. Aug. 11, 2009; Aug. 28, 2009). 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
