Filed: Aug. 03, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6178 CHARLES STRAUGHTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PATRICIA STANSBERRY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-865) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 3, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Straughter, Ap
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6178 CHARLES STRAUGHTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PATRICIA STANSBERRY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-865) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 3, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Straughter, App..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6178 CHARLES STRAUGHTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus PATRICIA STANSBERRY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-865) Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 3, 2005 Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Straughter, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles Straughter, a federal prisoner, appeals from the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition, which challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ computation of good time credits, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Straughter v. Stansberry, No. CA-04-865 (E.D.N.C. filed Jan. 10, 2005; entered Jan. 19, 2005). 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 -
