Filed: Dec. 28, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7628 DWAYNE E. DICKENS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN MALDONADO, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA-03-3112-6-20AK) Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 28, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwayne E. Dickens, Appellant Pro S
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7628 DWAYNE E. DICKENS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN MALDONADO, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA-03-3112-6-20AK) Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 28, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwayne E. Dickens, Appellant Pro Se..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7628 DWAYNE E. DICKENS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN MALDONADO, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CA-03-3112-6-20AK) Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 28, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwayne E. Dickens, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Dwayne E. Dickens, 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 for the reasons stated by the district court. See Dickens v. Maldonado, No. CA-03-3112-6- 20AK (D.S.C. Sept. 15, 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 -
