Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Montero v. Clinton, 03-7747 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-7747 Visitors: 32
Filed: Feb. 09, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7747 MANUEL RAUL MONTERO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, Former President; ALL AMERICAN PREZ ET, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, District Judge. (CA-03-2162-2) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 9, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as mod
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7747 MANUEL RAUL MONTERO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, Former President; ALL AMERICAN PREZ ET, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, District Judge. (CA-03-2162-2) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 9, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Manuel Raul Montero, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Manuel Raul Montero, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing for failure to file in the proper court 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, but modify the district court’s order to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice to Montero’s right to refile in the proper court. See Montero v. Clinton, No. CA-03-2162-2 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 17, 2003). We grant Montero’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 AS MODIFIED - 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