Filed: Sep. 23, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6905 JOHNNY LEE GORE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; J. STROM THURMOND, JR., United States Attorney; ROSEMARY PARHAM, Assistant United States Attorney, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1894-2-12) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 23, 2004 Befor
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6905 JOHNNY LEE GORE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; J. STROM THURMOND, JR., United States Attorney; ROSEMARY PARHAM, Assistant United States Attorney, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1894-2-12) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 23, 2004 Before..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6905 JOHNNY LEE GORE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; J. STROM THURMOND, JR., United States Attorney; ROSEMARY PARHAM, Assistant United States Attorney, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1894-2-12) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 23, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny Lee Gore, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Johnny Lee Gore appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Gore v. United States Attorney, No. CA-02- 1894-2-12 (D.S.C. Feb. 25, 2004). We deny as unnecessary Gore’s motion for a certificate of appealability and 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 -