Filed: Sep. 05, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6738 VINCENT MERRICKS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAN L. DOVE, Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-2538) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 5, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unp
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6738 VINCENT MERRICKS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAN L. DOVE, Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-2538) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 5, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6738 VINCENT MERRICKS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAN L. DOVE, Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-2538) Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 5, 2002 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Merricks, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Vincent Merricks appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Merricks v. Dove, No. CA-01-2538 (D.S.C. Apr. 25, 2002). We also deny Merricks’ motion to amend his § 2241 petition. 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
