Bruce Bunting v. Roy Cooper, No. 17-6839 (4th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6839 BRUCE BUNTING, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROY A. COOPER, North Carolina Governor; UNC MEDICAL CENTER; DR. JAMES ENGLEMAN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:17-ct-03098-D) Submitted: October 31, 2017 Decided: November 9, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce Bunting, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Finarelli, Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bruce Bunting appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint and motion for an emergency injunction. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Bunting’s informal briefs do not challenge the bases for the district court’s dismissal of his complaint, we conclude that Bunting has forfeited appellate review of the issue. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Bunting’s motion for an emergency injunction. See League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 235 (4th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We also deny as moot Bunting’s motion for reconsideration of this court’s order denying his Fed. R. App. P. 8(a) motion, and we deny Bunting’s petitions for a writ of mandamus. 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 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.