Filed: Dec. 10, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7126 JULIUS ERVIN UNDERHILL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DONNA SMITH, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:18-hc-02202-BO) Submitted: December 4, 2019 Decided: December 10, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7126 JULIUS ERVIN UNDERHILL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DONNA SMITH, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:18-hc-02202-BO) Submitted: December 4, 2019 Decided: December 10, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion...
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7126
JULIUS ERVIN UNDERHILL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DONNA SMITH, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:18-hc-02202-BO)
Submitted: December 4, 2019 Decided: December 10, 2019
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Julius Ervin Underhill, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Julius Ervin Underhill, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
See Underhill v. Smith, No. 5:18-hc-02202-BO (E.D.N.C. July 23, 2019). 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