Filed: Oct. 19, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6757 BARRY MCCORMICK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN DOE, Warden, FCI Butner; ROBERT MCFADDEN, Warden, FCI, Jesup, GA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-04-57-5-BO) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 19, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6757 BARRY MCCORMICK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN DOE, Warden, FCI Butner; ROBERT MCFADDEN, Warden, FCI, Jesup, GA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-04-57-5-BO) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 19, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6757 BARRY MCCORMICK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN DOE, Warden, FCI Butner; ROBERT MCFADDEN, Warden, FCI, Jesup, GA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (CA-04-57-5-BO) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 19, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barry McCormick, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Barry McCormick, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders 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 for the reasons stated by the district court. See McCormick v. Doe, No. CA-04-57-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 25 & Feb. 17, 2004). 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 -
