Filed: Jan. 26, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7694 MARLON BRAMWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (CA-05-460-7; CA-03-2065) Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 26, 2006 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marlon Bramwell, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7694 MARLON BRAMWELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (CA-05-460-7; CA-03-2065) Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 26, 2006 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marlon Bramwell, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7694
MARLON BRAMWELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.
(CA-05-460-7; CA-03-2065)
Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 26, 2006
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marlon Bramwell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Marlon Bramwell appeals the district court’s orders
dismissing his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000),
which the district court construed as a complaint filed pursuant to
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403
U.S. 388 (1971), and dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000),
and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. See Bramwell v. Fed. Prison Indus., Nos.
CA-05-460-7; CA-03-2065 (W.D. Va. July 19 & Sept. 28, 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 -