Filed: Jan. 08, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7319 DORTHA ELKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEBORAH A. HICKEY, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge. (1:04-cv-00992) Submitted: December 18, 2006 Decided: January 8, 2007 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7319 DORTHA ELKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEBORAH A. HICKEY, Warden, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge. (1:04-cv-00992) Submitted: December 18, 2006 Decided: January 8, 2007 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opin..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7319
DORTHA ELKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DEBORAH A. HICKEY, Warden,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (1:04-cv-00992)
Submitted: December 18, 2006 Decided: January 8, 2007
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dortha Elkins, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dortha Elkins appeals the district court order dismissing
her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition for failure to state a claim.
Because she failed to demonstrate that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) was
inadequate or ineffective to test her conviction, Elkins did not
meet the criteria for proceeding under § 2241. In re Jones,
226
F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we deny Elkins’
motions for appointment of counsel and to proceed on appeal in
forma pauperis and affirm. 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 -