Filed: Sep. 01, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7110 ROBERT JUNIOR WARDRICK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:06-cv- 01274-AMD) Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: September 1, 2006 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Junior Wardrick, Appellant Pro Se. Unpubl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7110 ROBERT JUNIOR WARDRICK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:06-cv- 01274-AMD) Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: September 1, 2006 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Junior Wardrick, Appellant Pro Se. Unpubli..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7110 ROBERT JUNIOR WARDRICK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:06-cv- 01274-AMD) Submitted: August 24, 2006 Decided: September 1, 2006 Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Junior Wardrick, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Robert Wardrick, a federal inmate, appeals a district court order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court order and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See Wardrick v. Warden, No. 1:06-cv-01274-AMD (D. Md. May 30, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials in the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.* AFFIRMED * To the extent Wardrick may be seeking authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000) to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, challenging the search and seizure warrant, we deny authorization. - 2 -
