Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Carter v. Sawyer, 03-6661 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-6661 Visitors: 38
Filed: Sep. 04, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6661 DAVID L. CARTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus KATHLEEN SAWYER, Custodian ex rel., The State of North Carolina, United States Federal Bureau of Prisons; ARTHUR F. BEELER, CEO of the Federal Medical Center, Butner, North Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-69-5-BO) Submitte
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6661 DAVID L. CARTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus KATHLEEN SAWYER, Custodian ex rel., The State of North Carolina, United States Federal Bureau of Prisons; ARTHUR F. BEELER, CEO of the Federal Medical Center, Butner, North Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-69-5-BO) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 4, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David L. Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: David Carter appeals the district court order and judgment summarily dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) action. After reviewing the record, we find Carter failed to state a claim for relief. We further find his transfer to another institution has mooted any request for injunctive or declaratory relief. Accordingly, while we grant Carter leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s order and judgment. 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:  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