Filed: Jun. 20, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6158 CARL GREEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN LAMANNA, Warden of FPC Edgefield in his official capacity, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (3:06-cv-02377-PMD) Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 20, 2007 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6158 CARL GREEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN LAMANNA, Warden of FPC Edgefield in his official capacity, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (3:06-cv-02377-PMD) Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 20, 2007 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6158 CARL GREEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN LAMANNA, Warden of FPC Edgefield in his official capacity, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (3:06-cv-02377-PMD) Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 20, 2007 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl Green, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carl Green, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Green v. LaManna, No. 3:06-cv-02377-PMD (D.S.C. filed Jan. 22, 2007; entered Jan. 23, 2007). 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 -
