Wilson v. McKeller, No. 07-6823 (4th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6823 JOHN COOKE WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WARDEN MCKELLER; JON OZMINT, Director; GARY MANIGAULT, Officer; PARTNER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (6:06-cv-01633-GRA) Submitted: November 6, 2007 Decided: November 21, 2007 Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Cooke Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel F. Arthur, III, Bradford Cary Andrews, AIKEN, BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT & TYLER, PA, Florence, South Carolina; Benjamin Albert Baroody, BELLAMY, RUTENBURG, COPELAND, EPPS, GRAVELY & BOWERS, PA, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Cooke Wilson appeals the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find that Wilson has failed to demonstrate that his injuries, if any, were not de minimus in nature. Wilson also alleges that one of the correctional officers used a racial slur while assaulting him. mere threats or While the alleged statement was deplorable, verbal abuse, cognizable claim under § 1983. without more, do not state a See Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1524 (10th Cir. 1992) (citing Collins v. Cundy, 603 F.2d 825, 827 (10th Cir. 1979)); see also Carter v. Morris, 164 F.3d 215, 219 n.3 (4th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 6:06-cv-01633-GRA (D.S.C. May 24, 2007). Wilson v. McKeller, No. 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 - 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.