# Cooper v. The North Carolina State Board of Elections

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · January 20, 2010

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1031323

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 20, 2010
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1031323

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1685

NATHANIEL COOPER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; GARY O.
BARTLETT, Executive Director; ARTHUR J. EARLY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
District Judge. (5:08-cv-00423-D)

Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 20, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Cooper, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Kelly Nichols, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Alexander McClure Peters,
Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina;
Milton Heath Gilbert, Jr., BAUCOM, CLAYTOR, BENTON, MORGAN &
WOOD, PA, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel Cooper appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his civil action. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. Cooper v. North Carolina

State Bd. of Elections, No. 5:08-cv-00423-D (E.D.N.C. June 12,

2009). We deny Cooper’s motions to transfer and to expedite,

and his “Emergency Motion” for “monetary relief and a cease and

desist order against Equifax Credit Bureau and Piedmont Gas.”

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1031323. Public record. Not legal advice.