Case Name: Raymond A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.; C. Matthew Keen, Individually and as Agent of Defendants; Shera K. Stewart, Individually and as Agent of Defendants; Brian M. Freedman, Individually and as Agent of Defendants, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-25
Citations: 471 F. App'x 209
Docket Number: No. 12-1048
Parties: Raymond A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.; C. Matthew Keen, Individually and as Agent of Defendants; Shera K. Stewart, Individually and as Agent of Defendants; Brian M. Freedman, Individually and as Agent of Defendants, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 471
Pages: 209–210

Head Matter:
Raymond A. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.; C. Matthew Keen, Individually and as Agent of Defendants; Shera K. Stewart, Individually and as Agent of Defendants; Brian M. Freedman, Individually and as Agent of Defendants, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-1048.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 19, 2012.
Decided: April 25, 2012.
Raymond A. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah Helen Roane, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Raymond A. Johnson appeals the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. Finding no reversible error, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Johnson v. Ogletree, No. 3:11-cv-00391-MOC-DCK, 2011 WL 5970914 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 28, 2011). Johnson claims on appeal that the district court was biased against him. 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 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.