Case Name: Bennie A. MACK, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carl FOX, In his individual capacity and in his former official capacity as District Attorney; James Woodall, In his individual capacity and in his official capacity as District Attorney for the 15B Prosecutorial district of NC; Wade Barber, Retired Superior Court Judge in his individual capacity; Aries Cox, In his individual capacity and in his official capacity as a probation officer for the 15B Prosecutorial District of NC; Geoffrey Hathway, In his individual capacity and in his official capacity as supervisor for the department of probation and parole for the 15B Prosecutorial District of NC; Vin Linga, In her individual capacity and in her former official capacity as Assistant District Attorney for the NC 15B Prosecutorial District; Roy Cooper, In his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of NC; Clarence Joe Delforge, III; Orange County, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-25
Citations: 328 F. App'x 257
Docket Number: No. 09-6599
Parties: Bennie A. MACK, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carl FOX, In his individual capacity and in his former official capacity as District Attorney; James Woodall, In his individual capacity and in his official capacity as District Attorney for the 15B Prosecutorial district of NC; Wade Barber, Retired Superior Court Judge in his individual capacity; Aries Cox, In his individual capacity and in his official capacity as a probation officer for the 15B Prosecutorial District of NC; Geoffrey Hathway, In his individual capacity and in his official capacity as supervisor for the department of probation and parole for the 15B Prosecutorial District of NC; Vin Linga, In her individual capacity and in her former official capacity as Assistant District Attorney for the NC 15B Prosecutorial District; Roy Cooper, In his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of NC; Clarence Joe Delforge, III; Orange County, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 257–258

Head Matter:
Bennie A. MACK, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carl FOX, In his individual capacity and in his former official capacity as District Attorney; James Woodall, In his individual capacity and in his official capacity as District Attorney for the 15B Prosecutorial district of NC; Wade Barber, Retired Superior Court Judge in his individual capacity; Aries Cox, In his individual capacity and in his official capacity as a probation officer for the 15B Prosecutorial District of NC; Geoffrey Hathway, In his individual capacity and in his official capacity as supervisor for the department of probation and parole for the 15B Prosecutorial District of NC; Vin Linga, In her individual capacity and in her former official capacity as Assistant District Attorney for the NC 15B Prosecutorial District; Roy Cooper, In his individual capacity and in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of NC; Clarence Joe Delforge, III; Orange County, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-6599.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 18, 2009.
Decided: June 25, 2009.
Bennie A. Mack, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Gerald Patrick Murphy, Yvonne Bulluck Ricci, Assistant Attorney Generals, Raleigh, North Carolina; Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bennie A. Mack, Jr., appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Mack v. Fox, No. 1:07-cv-00784-NCT-DPD (M.D.N.C. Mar. 26, 2009). 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.