Bennie Mack, Jr. v. Officer Charles Turner, No. 17-6337 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6337 BENNIE AUSTIN MACK, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OFFICER CHARLES TURNER, in his official capacity as an employee of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and in his individual capacity; TRAVIS ELMORE, in his official capacity as an employee of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and in his individual capacity; CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR., in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and in his individual capacity; JOEL COAKLEY, in his official capacity as Warden at the Federal Correctional Institution in Beckley, West Virginia, and in his individual capacity; DAVID LEMASTER, in his official capacity as Executive Director and Camp Administrator at the Federal Correctional Institution in Beckley, West Virginia, and in his individual capacity; E. STOCK, in her official capacity as an employee of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and in her individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:15-cv-03589) Submitted: August 18, 2017 Decided: August 28, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bennie A. Mack, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michael Horn, Assistant United States Attorney, Matthew Charles Lindsay, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Bennie Austin Mack, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil action for failure to prosecute and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Mack v. Turner, No. 5:15-cv-03589 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 3, 2017; Jan. 25, 2017). We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
