Filed: Mar. 31, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6125 WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH V. SMITH, Warden of FCI Edgefield, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-3594-6-20-AK) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 31, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unp
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6125 WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH V. SMITH, Warden of FCI Edgefield, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-3594-6-20-AK) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 31, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpu..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6125 WILLIAM M. BRYSON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOSEPH V. SMITH, Warden of FCI Edgefield, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-02-3594-6-20-AK) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 31, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William M. Bryson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William M. Bryson, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bryson v. Smith, No. CA-02-3594-6-20-AK (D.S.C. Dec. 10, 2002). 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
