Cordero v. Wilkinson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: November 26, 2001
• Docket: 01-7301
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7301

JOHN CORDERO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

J. HARVIE WILKINSON, III, in his adminis- trative capacity as Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; PATRICIA S. CONNOR, in her official capacity as Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIR- CUIT; WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, in his administra- tive capacity as Chairperson of the Judicial Conference of the United States; JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 01-7380

versus J. HARVIE WILKINSON, III, in his adminis- trative capacity as Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; PATRICIA S. CONNOR, in her official capacity as Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIR- CUIT; WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, in his administra- tive capacity as Chairperson of the Judicial Conference of the United States; JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES,

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-01-237-1-17-BD)

Submitted: November 9, 2001 Decided: November 26, 2001

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Cordero, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

2 PER CURIAM:

John Cordero appeals the district court’s orders dismissing

without prejudice his Bivens* complaint. We have reviewed the rec-

ord and the district court’s opinions accepting the recommendation

of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cordero v.

Wilkinson, No. CA-01-237-1-17-BD (D.S.C. filed July 26, 2001, &

entered July 27, 2001; filed Aug. 6, 2001, & entered Aug. 7, 2001).

We deny Cordero’s motion to recuse and 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

* Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).