William Laureano v. Captain Jones, No. 11-7691 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7691 WILLIAM LAUREANO, Plaintiff Appellant, v. CAPTAIN FNU JONES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (1:11-cv-00779-TMC) Submitted: February 16, 2012 Decided: February 23, 2012 Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Laureano, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt, MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William Laureano 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. reviewed the record and find no reversible error. we affirm for the reasons stated by the We have Accordingly, district court. Laureano v. Jones, No. 1:11-cv-00779-TMC (D.S.C. Dec. 2, 2011). Laureano claims on appeal that the district court was biased against him and should have recused himself. record has revealed no evidence of extra-judicial therefore this argument is without merit. States, 510 judicial U.S. rulings 540, 555 (1994) alone do not Our review of the bias, and See Liteky v. United (holding constitute that bias). unfavorable We deny Laureano s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral contentions argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials legal before the court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.