Filed: Jun. 29, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6505 JAMES CAVANAGH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN LAMANNA, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution at Edgefield, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (3:05-cv-02842-RBH) Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 29, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6505 JAMES CAVANAGH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN LAMANNA, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution at Edgefield, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (3:05-cv-02842-RBH) Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 29, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6505 JAMES CAVANAGH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN LAMANNA, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution at Edgefield, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (3:05-cv-02842-RBH) Submitted: June 21, 2007 Decided: June 29, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Cavanagh, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Cavanagh, 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 deny Cavanagh’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Cavanagh v. Lamanna, No. 3:05-cv-02842-RBH (D.S.C. Mar. 22, 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 -
