Case ID: f-appx_36/html/0516-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Cooke WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRESIDENT, TIME, INCORPORATED; Brian Wolfe, Director of Consumer Marketing Time, Incorporated; E. Matthews, Director of Sweepstakes Time, Incorporated; W.J. Miller, Director of Sweepstakes Time, Incorporated; President, Ventura Associates, Incorporated; President, Sports Illustrated Magazine; Guaranteed & Bonded Sweepstakes III; Time Customer Service, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 02-1213.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 21, 2002.
    Decided June 11, 2002.
    John Cooke Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Frank Rogers Ellerbee, III, Robinson, McFadden & Moore, P.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

John Cooke Wilson appeals the district court’s order adopting the report and reeommendation of a magistrate judge .granting Appellees’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing Wilson’s action. On appeal, Wilson contends that the district court erred by dismissing his claims of fraud, perjury, and conspiracy stemming from a magazine sweepstakes promotion. Finding no error, we affirm.

We review an award of summary judgment de novo. Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir.1988). Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-49, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In determining whether the moving party has shown that there is no genuine issue of material fact, we assess the factual evidence and all inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. at 255; Smith v. Va. Commonwealth Univ., 84 F.3d 672, 675 (4th Cir.1996).

We have reviewed Wilson’s claims and find them meritless. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Wilson v. President, Time, Inc., No. CA-00-2293-1-13AK (D.S.C. Dec. 7, 2001). 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. 
      
       Wilson raised several other claims in his original complaint, but he failed to raise those claims on appeal. Therefore, he has waived review of those claims. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).