Filed: Mar. 28, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7039 KENNETH DELBRIDGE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STEPHEN M. DEWALT, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (CA-05-1487-1-BEL) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 28, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Delbridge, Appe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7039 KENNETH DELBRIDGE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus STEPHEN M. DEWALT, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (CA-05-1487-1-BEL) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 28, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Delbridge, Appel..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7039
KENNETH DELBRIDGE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
STEPHEN M. DEWALT, Warden,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
(CA-05-1487-1-BEL)
Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 28, 2006
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Delbridge, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Delbridge, a federal prisoner, appeals the
district court’s order 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 Delbridge v. Dewalt, No. CA-05-1487-1-BEL
(D. Md. June 24, 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 -