Filed: Oct. 06, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6832 CHRISTOPHER EUGENE COOK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHARLES L. MANN, SR.; WILLIS J. FOWLER; ANDREW P. TERRELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:09-ct-03013-BO) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 6, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6832 CHRISTOPHER EUGENE COOK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHARLES L. MANN, SR.; WILLIS J. FOWLER; ANDREW P. TERRELL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:09-ct-03013-BO) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 6, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6832
CHRISTOPHER EUGENE COOK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES L. MANN, SR.; WILLIS J. FOWLER; ANDREW P. TERRELL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:09-ct-03013-BO)
Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 6, 2010
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher Eugene Cook, Appellant Pro Se. Oliver Gray Wheeler,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Eugene Cook appeals the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint
and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Cook v. Mann, No.
5:09-ct-03013-BO (E.D.N.C. Jan. 29, & June 9, 2010). 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