Waldo Fenner v. Bill Bell

Filing 402771332

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:08-cv-00367-TDS-DPD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998325943] [09-2348]

Case: 09-2348

Document: 13

Date Filed: 04/26/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2348 WALDO FENNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BILL BELL, Mayor; PATRICK BAKER; STEVEN W. CHALMERS; RONALD HODGE; LEE RUSS; STEPHEN MIHAICH; BEV COUNCIL; JEFF LAMB; R. H. SHEPHERD; B. D. REITZ; TIMOTHY STANHOPE; M. K. BOND; LAWRENCE CAMPBELL; MRS. SHANNON TUCKER; MRS. DANIEL BRUNO; MICHAEL S. FERGUSON; ORLANDO HUDSON, Judge; PAYNE, Magistrate; T. A. DREW, Magistrate; ANTHONY MOSS; DR. OXLEY, Chief Executive Officer; RENEE GORBY; ELAINE BUSHFAN, Chief Justice; TRACEY E. CLINE; MICHAEL NIFONG, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas David Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00367-TDS-DPD) Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 26, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Waldo Fenner, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Martin Grantham, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Durham, North Carolina; David John Adinolfi, II, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina;

Case: 09-2348

Document: 13

Date Filed: 04/26/2010

Page: 2

Harold Franklin Askins, Dorothy Powers, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Case: 09-2348

Document: 13

Date Filed: 04/26/2010

Page: 3

PER CURIAM: Waldo accepting modified, the and Fenner appeals of civil the the district court's order as have

recommendation dismissing his

magistrate action.

judge, We

rights

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. we affirm for Bell, the No. reasons stated by the

Accordingly, court. 13,

district

Fenner v. 2009). legal before

1:08-cv-00367-TDS-DPD

(M.D.N.C.

Nov.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in the the materials decisional

would

aid

process. AFFIRMED

3