Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Rex Hatfield v. D. Young, 19-7289 (2020)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-7289 Visitors: 3
Filed: Jan. 24, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-7289 REX I. HATFIELD; EVERLY K. HATFIELD, Petitioners - Appellants, v. D. L. YOUNG, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:18-cv-01265) Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 24, 2020 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rex I. Ha
More
                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 19-7289


REX I. HATFIELD; EVERLY K. HATFIELD,

                     Petitioners - Appellants,

              v.

D. L. YOUNG, Warden,

                     Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:18-cv-01265)


Submitted: January 21, 2020                                       Decided: January 24, 2020


Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Rex I. Hatfield, Everly K. Hatfield, Appellants Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Rex I. Hatfield and Everly K. Hatfield, federal prisoners, appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on their

joint 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition. 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. Hatfield v. Young, No. 5:18-cv-01265 (S.D.W. Va.

Sept. 3, 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer