Case Name: Carl Benit COOPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PINKERTON SECURITY, et al; Andrew John Savage, III, Esquire; Eduardo Kelvin Curry, Esquire; Michael S. Seekings, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-09
Citations: 249 F. App'x 979
Docket Number: No. 07-1252
Parties: Carl Benit COOPER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. PINKERTON SECURITY, et al; Andrew John Savage, III, Esquire; Eduardo Kelvin Curry, Esquire; Michael S. Seekings, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 249
Pages: 979–980

Head Matter:
Carl Benit COOPER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. PINKERTON SECURITY, et al; Andrew John Savage, III, Esquire; Eduardo Kelvin Curry, Esquire; Michael S. Seekings, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 07-1252.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 17, 2007.
Decided: Oct. 9, 2007.
Carl Benit Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Holmes Hood, Hood Law Firm, Charleston, South Carolina; John A. Mas-salon, Wills & Massalon, Charleston, South Carolina; Joseph Rutledge Young, III, Duffy & Young, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina; Eduardo Kelvin Curry, Curry, Curry & Counts, Charleston, South Carolina; Timothy William Bouch, Leath, Bouch & Crawford, LLP, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Carl Benit Cooper appeals a district court order and judgment adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and dismissing his claim of a conspiracy among several parties ultimately resulting in his criminal convictions. We have reviewed the record and the district court's order and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See Cooper v. Pinkerton, No. 4:06-cv-01448-CMC, 2007 WL 666799 (D.S.C. Feb. 27, 2007). 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.