Farley Bernard v. Nurse Hobbs, No. 12-7284 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7284 FARLEY L. BERNARD, Plaintiff Appellant, v. NURSE HOBBS; VIRGINIA SUE DAWSON, Defendants - Appellees, and GERALD BRANKER; CHAPLAIN SPEARS; CHAPLAIN MONTGOMERY; ROBERT C. LEWIS; KERRY MASSEY; SGT. BENNETT; HATTIE B. PIMPONG; CARL E. BATTLE; MRS. SMITH; RENOICE STANCIL; EDWARD B. THOMAS; DONNIE R. RAYNOR; A. JAMES; R. LEE; NURSE WATSON; DR. WILLIAMS; MARY S. POLLARD, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:10-ct-03164-D) Submitted: December 27, 2012 Decided: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. January 16, 2013 Farley L. Bernard, Assistant Attorney Appellees. Appellant General, Pro Se. Raleigh, Lisa North Yvette Harper, Carolina, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Farley L. Bernard appeals the district court s January 12, 2012 order denying his motions for reconsideration, to amend his complaint, for a preliminary injunction, and for appointment of counsel and directing Defendants Hobbs and Dawson to file a response to his motion to compel discovery, its May 9, 2012 order denying his motions for reconsideration and leave to amend and granting in part his motion to compel discovery, and its July 18, judgment 2012 motion order and granting denying Hobbs Bernard and leave Dawson s to depose summary in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights action. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Bernard s informal brief does not challenge the district court s denial of his motions for reconsideration, to amend, for a preliminary injunction, and for leave to depose or its rulings directing Hobbs and Dawson to respond to his motion to compel and granting the motion to compel in part, Bernard has forfeited appellate review of those rulings. With respect to the district court s rulings denying Bernard s motions for appointment of counsel and granting Hobbs and Dawson s summary judgment motion, record and find no reversible error. we reviewed the Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 3 have Bernard v. Hobbs, No. 5:10-ct-03164-D dispense with contentions are oral (E.D.N.C. argument adequately Jan. 12 & because presented in July the the 18, 2012). We facts and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

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.