Case ID: f-appx_22/html/0197-02.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 CORDERO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. Harvie WILKINSON, III, in his administrative 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 Circuit; William H. Rehnquist, in his administrative capacity as Chairperson of the Judicial Conference of the United States; Judicial Conference of the United States, Defendants-Appellees. John Cordero, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. Harvie Wilkinson, III, in his administrative 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 Circuit; William H. Rehnquist, in his administrative capacity as Chairperson of the Judicial Conference of the United States; Judicial Conference of the United States, Defendants-Appellees.
    Nos. 01-7301, 01-7380.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 9, 2001.
    Decided Nov. 26, 2001.
    John Cordero, pro se.
    Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

John Cordero appeals the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his Bivens complaint. We have reviewed the record 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, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971).