Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07184/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07184-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7184

GREGORY BARTKO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CLAY CAMPBELL WHEELER; SCOTT B. HOLLENBECK; GEORGE E.B. 

HOLDING, Individually and as United States Attorney, for the 

Eastern District of North Carolina; U. S. ATTORNEY THOMAS G. 

WALKER, Individually and as United States Attorney for the 

Eastern District of North Carolina,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,

Chief District Judge. (5:14-ct-03043-D)

Submitted: December 31, 2014 Decided: January 15, 2014

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Bartko, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7184 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/15/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Bartko appeals the district court’s orders

transferring this action to the Eastern District of North 

Carolina, denying his recusal motion, and dismissing his 

complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. As to Bartko’s recusal motion, we conclude that the 

district court’s failure to “pass on the legal sufficiency of 

the facts alleged” in Bartko’s 28 U.S.C. § 144 (2012) 

declaration is not reversible error because the affidavit was 

insufficient as a matter of law. Sine v. Local No. 992 Int’l 

Bhd. of Teamsters, 882 F.2d 913, 914 (4th Cir. 1989). We affirm

the transfer order and the dismissal of the complaint for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Bartko v. Wheeler, No. 

5:14-ct-03043-D (E.D.N.C. July 18, 2014); Bartko v. Wheeler, No. 

1:13-cv-01006-JAB-LPA (M.D.N.C. Feb. 10, 2014). We grant 

Bartko’s motion to exceed the length limitations for his 

informal brief. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 14-7184 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/15/2015 Pg: 2 of 2