Laureano v. Jones

Fourth Circuit

Laureano v. Jones

467 F. App'x 233

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 23, 2012

DocketNo. 11-7691

StatusPublished

This text of 467 F. App'x 233 (Laureano v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Laureano v. Jones, 467 F. App'x 233 (4th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

William Laureano 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. Laureano v. Jones, No. 1:11— cv-00779-TMC, 2011 WL 6012548 (D.S.C. Dec. 2, 2011). Laureano claims on appeal that the district court was biased against him and should have recused himself. Our review of the record has revealed no evidence of extra-judicial bias, and therefore this argument is without merit. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) (holding that unfavorable judicial rulings alone do not constitute bias). We deny Laureano’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

William Laureano 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. Laureano v. Jones, No. 1:11— cv-00779-TMC, 2011 WL 6012548 (D.S.C. Dec. 2, 2011). Laureano claims on appeal that the district court was biased against him and should have recused himself. Our review of the record has revealed no evidence of extra-judicial bias, and therefore this argument is without merit. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) (holding that unfavorable judicial rulings alone do not constitute bias). We deny Laureano’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

467 F. App'x 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laureano-v-jones-ca4-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack