Mack v. Fox ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6599
BENNIE A. MACK, JR.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CARL FOX, In his individual capacity and in his former
official capacity as District Attorney; JAMES WOODALL, In
his individual capacity and in his official capacity as
District Attorney for the 15B Prosecutorial district of NC;
WADE BARBER, Retired Superior Court Judge in his individual
capacity; ARIES COX, In his individual capacity and in his
official capacity as a probation officer for the 15B
Prosecutorial District of NC; GEOFFREY HATHWAY, In his
individual capacity and in his official capacity as
supervisor for the department of probation and parole for
the 15B Prosecutorial District of NC; VIN LINGA, In her
individual capacity and in her former official capacity as
Assistant District Attorney for the NC 15B Prosecutorial
District; ROY COOPER, In his individual capacity and in his
official capacity as Attorney General for the State of NC;
CLARENCE JOE DELFORGE, III; ORANGE COUNTY,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-00784-NCT-DPD)
Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 25, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bennie A. Mack, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Gerald Patrick Murphy,
Yvonne Bulluck Ricci, Assistant Attorney Generals, Raleigh,
North Carolina; Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney
General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Bennie A. Mack, Jr., 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. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Mack v. Fox, No. 1:07-cv-00784-NCT-DPD (M.D.N.C.
Mar. 26, 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
3