Case Name: John CORDERO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John MOBLEY, Esquire; Stephen L. Hudson; Hudson & Mobley, P.C., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-07-30
Citations: 15 F. App'x 98
Docket Number: No. 01-6456
Parties: John CORDERO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John MOBLEY, Esquire; Stephen L. Hudson; Hudson & Mobley, P.C., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 15
Pages: 98–98

Head Matter:
John CORDERO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John MOBLEY, Esquire; Stephen L. Hudson; Hudson & Mobley, P.C., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 01-6456.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 17, 2001.
Decided July 30, 2001.
John Cordero, pro se. Stephen Larry Hudson, John Mobley, Hudson & Mobley, Columbia, SC, for appellees.
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
John Cordero appeals the district court's order denying relief in his civil diversity action. He also appeals the district court's and magistrate judge's orders denying his motion to recuse. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant summary judgment in favor of Appellees and find no reversible error. Nor do we find any abuse of discretion in the district court's or magistrate judge's denial of the motion to recuse. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cordero v. Mobley, No. CA-98-2334-3-17BD (D.S.C. filed Aug. 12, 1999, and entered Aug. 13, 1999; filed Oct. 8, 1999, and entered Oct. 13, 1999; entered Feb. 28, 2001; entered Mar. 2, 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.